• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The answer that most CC'ers give in opposition to OC

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
WTF? What forums are you reading? basementdwellersconcealedcarry.net?

Actually I know exactily the forum he's talking about. Go to www.defensivecarry.org and just look around, especialy in the Open Carry subsection of the forum. Some of the most anti-OC, vile, hateful, misinformed things you will ever read are regularly posted in threads there. Also take a trip over to USACarry.org and read through some of the threads there with particular eye owrds the Open Carry subsection of that forum. Defensive Carry had so many flame wars start up over the topic of Open Carry that they created the subsection of Open Carry where OCers could go and discuss OC without getting harrassed by the naysayers. After a while they changed the policy to allow the OC section to be a free for all because the moderators got overwhelmed trying to control the threads and delete the posts of all of the anti-OC folks who insisted on trolling that section. I don't worry so much about the Brady Center To Prevent Handgun Violence or whatever it's called. I really don't. It's the guys (and gals) who are supposed to be our allies in the gun hobby who are activly hamstringing us that I dispise the most.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
I've had CCers tell me I'm "hurting the cause" by OCing. I'm "taking away our freedom" for OCing. I had one post on a local, generally CC forum but, posted in the OC part and boy, was I flamed. How am I taking away our freedom by exercising it? :eek:
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
I've had CCers tell me I'm "hurting the cause" by OCing. I'm "taking away our freedom" for OCing. I had one post on a local, generally CC forum but, posted in the OC part and boy, was I flamed. How am I taking away our freedom by exercising it? :eek:

I know. There are plenty of those types of threads or posts at some of those other sites. Here's a good example at USACarry.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/22782-ocers-nutty.html#post272719
OC'ers are nutty
I think the OC crowd is kind of nutty, just like the Westboro Baptist Church is kind of nutty. Every group has their nutty folks, and in the gun owners/lovers world, the OC'ers are nutty, IMO. Kind of like motorcycle riders...we all love 2 wheels, the wind in our face, etc., but the HD riders think their chit don't stink, and if you ride a Honda then you are not a true biker. I am mostly turned off by the attitudes from the OC'ers, much like I am turned off by the attitudes of the HD riders. Open carry to your hearts content, I just wonder if you don't hurt the cause more than you help.

Or this thread which is 35 pages long...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/19392-why-open-carry-bad-strategy.html
Why Open Carry is a bad Strategy

Open Carry has many fans, but when it comes down to a firefight, it will fail you.

When you Open Carry, you are signaling the world that you are prepared for a fight, even if you are just bluffing!

Bad Guys are not afraid of you unless you are actually ready to fight.

And they aren't going to give you that chance.

Combat Strategy demands that you have the offensive, the edge, the element of surprise.

Tactics learned on the conventional firing range are worthless in a real fight. The Bad Guys aren't going to give you time to get ready, and sight in on them. They want to win, at your expense.

Concealed Carry is the way to go on the streets. You get the element of surprise.

Remember in my earlier post I mentioned that the owners of Defensive Carry changed the way they handle the OC section of their forum? At the top of that section is this Stickie...
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...cussions/119096-changes-open-carry-forum.html
Changes to the Open Carry forum

When we originally opened this forum, I added a notation that this was not the place to "debate the virtues of open carry", essentially making it a protected forum. I have, since then, debated whether this was the right thing to do since we did not place any restrictions on other forums.

Open carry is a controversial subject, particularly when those that do OC do so specifically to garner attention to the practice. While we still discourage arguments over this topic, we will no longer offer "protection" for those who's practices invoke controversy. We now all stand on even ground but we will not hesitate to issue infractions for those that cross the line in comments and rebuttals.

If you can accept these changes, we will continue to welcome you to this forum. If not, there is another forum out there that may be more to your liking....
This opened up that part of the forum to anti-OC attacks like seen at USA Carry.

More anit-OC goodness from USA Carry....

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/19408-open-carry.html
I think it's a bad idea. concealed carry gives you time to address the situation, identify how many are involved and gives you the element of surprise. with open carry if your not alert 100 % of the time you could easily be the first target.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/19394-open-weapon.html
Bad idea People that see a exposed weapon are not comfotable and look odd at pearson. Allways conceal it.
 
Last edited:

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
I've had CCers tell me I'm "hurting the cause" by OCing. I'm "taking away our freedom" for OCing. I had one post on a local, generally CC forum but, posted in the OC part and boy, was I flamed. How am I taking away our freedom by exercising it? :eek:

Yep, I've been told on another shooting forum that my "pet cause" was going to make businesses post their stores with "no firearms" signs.

:eek::eek::eek:
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
Yep, I've been told on another shooting forum that my "pet cause" was going to make businesses post their stores with "no firearms" signs.

:eek::eek::eek:


Why is that confusing and wrong?


Listen, I'm not defending the arguments against OC, we all know most of them are rubbish. But, sometimes, there are unintended consequences.

For example, we came a hair's breath from getting open carry in Florida last year. Some sneaky underhanded politics at the final buzzer, combined with some very poor choice of wording used to campaign FOR the bill, killed it.

But, the way I understand things, the Retail Federation was bucking to have the legislature give "no firearms" signs some bite. Making it a criminal offense to ignore a posted sign.

Currently, in Florida, I can carry (Concealed that is) just about anywhere I choose. I can't carry in bars, schools, fed buildings, cop stations, and that's just about it. If it ain't on that list, I can carry. Period. Meaning, a business owner can post all the cotton picking signs they want. They're pretty signs, but, they mean nothing to me. I can admire them as I walk by them if if makes them feel better. LOL

If the Retail Federation had gotten their way, those sign would now prohibit me (a law abiding citizen) from carrying in there. Basically, severely restricting my freedom to carry. Fortunately, once the open carry bill died, the Retail Federation backed off their wishes.

Now, I don't know how much of a chance they had to get their way, but, one cannot discount the possibility they could have gotten it. Bad ideas get passed for law all the time. Would it stand up to test of court? Who knows, but, me? I'm not willing to gamble my freedoms that way. I may not like the fact that we don't have the choice to carry OC, but, at least we can still carry to protect ourselves and our family just about anywhere we want to go.

OC's day will come. But, it shouldn't be at the cost of other freedoms. Those that were fighting at the State level wisely gave up to fight another day, hopefully, without the potential backlash.

So, don't knock some claims. While we may not like hearing/seeing them, there is some risk present that could make them right.
 
Last edited:

BigBadChris

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2
Location
Arlington, Texas
I just started CC'ing this week, because I can't open carry in my state. I don't see why CC'ers feel the need to bash fellow 2nd amendment supporters. Makes no sense to me.:question:
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
I don't see why CC'ers feel the need to bash fellow 2nd amendment supporters. Makes no sense to me.:question:


To be fair, that train goes both ways. I see, IMHO, just as many OC'ers blasting at CC.

Personally, I've never understood the divide, one side or another. IMHO, carrying is carrying. Carry what you want, how you want, for the reasons you want. *shrug*

While that isn't always an option in every state, I've always felt we were on the same side here. (or supposed to be anyway)

I have my reasons to have a preferred method of carrying. As does everyone else here. On this particular forum, the majority would rather OC. On a CC forum, the preference might be different. So long as neither platform infringes upon the others rights or freedoms, I see no reason why either side should be wrong.
 
Last edited:

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
Why is that confusing and wrong?


Listen, I'm not defending the arguments against OC, we all know most of them are rubbish. But, sometimes, there are unintended consequences.

For example, we came a hair's breath from getting open carry in Florida last year. Some sneaky underhanded politics at the final buzzer, combined with some very poor choice of wording used to campaign FOR the bill, killed it.

But, the way I understand things, the Retail Federation was bucking to have the legislature give "no firearms" signs some bite. Making it a criminal offense to ignore a posted sign.

Currently, in Florida, I can carry (Concealed that is) just about anywhere I choose. I can't carry in bars, schools, fed buildings, cop stations, and that's just about it. If it ain't on that list, I can carry. Period. Meaning, a business owner can post all the cotton picking signs they want. They're pretty signs, but, they mean nothing to me. I can admire them as I walk by them if if makes them feel better. LOL

If the Retail Federation had gotten their way, those sign would now prohibit me (a law abiding citizen) from carrying in there. Basically, severely restricting my freedom to carry. Fortunately, once the open carry bill died, the Retail Federation backed off their wishes.

Now, I don't know how much of a chance they had to get their way, but, one cannot discount the possibility they could have gotten it. Bad ideas get passed for law all the time. Would it stand up to test of court? Who knows, but, me? I'm not willing to gamble my freedoms that way. I may not like the fact that we don't have the choice to carry OC, but, at least we can still carry to protect ourselves and our family just about anywhere we want to go.

OC's day will come. But, it shouldn't be at the cost of other freedoms. Those that were fighting at the State level wisely gave up to fight another day, hopefully, without the potential backlash.

So, don't knock some claims. While we may not like hearing/seeing them, there is some risk present that could make them right.

That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?
 

BigBadChris

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2
Location
Arlington, Texas
To be fair, that train goes both ways. I see, IMHO, just as many OC'ers blasting at CC.

Personally, I've never understood the divide, one side or another. IMHO, carrying is carrying. Carry what you want, how you want, for the reasons you want. *shrug*

While that isn't always an option in every state, I've always felt we were on the same side here. (or supposed to be anyway)

I have my reasons to have a preferred method of carrying. As does everyone else here. On this particular forum, the majority would rather OC. On a CC forum, the preference might be different. So long as neither platform infringes upon the others rights or freedoms, I see no reason why either side should be wrong.

I agree, carrying is carrying. I would love to have the option for both in my state so I don't have to worry about "printing". The people I have talked to prefer the concealed method. I would just assume have it out in the open, then concealed.
 

.40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
74
Location
earth
Agree with Chris, carrying is carrying. I support both methods of carry. I hope ultimately that the entire country will have Constitutional carry.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?

Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?

I'm probably not the best one to try to explain the OC bill fiasco we had recently. To be honest, I'm still a little confused about what exactly happened. And, of course, there's the finger-pointing. No one takes responsibility, and everyone's got someone else to blame.

The OC bill wasn't bad. I was just poorly executed. Here's the way I understand it....I think I'm pretty close to the pin here...but, bear in mind, this is only my own interpretation of the events.....

They were most probably going to attach it( the bill) to the current CC license scheme, meaning, they'd just turn our Concealed Carry licenses into a what would amount to simply a carry license. Not exactly the unrestricted, constitutional carry everyone wants, but, a solid step in the right direction. The license issue could then be challenged constitutionally later and perhaps end up with unrestricted OC and licensed CC in all likelihood.

There was enough support in the Florida government from what I understand. But, the organizers of the bill pushed it through using the excuse that if my jacket were to blow open in the wind and expose my concealed gun, I could go to jail. (something that was really a non-issue to begin with. Almost NO cases where anyone has ever been popped for that kind of "brief" exposure of a weapon. )

So, at the final hour, literally moments before the vote on the House floor, a couple of the more vocal opponents proposed an amendment to the bill that changed the wording to the current laws that clarified "temporary exposure" as a non-criminal act..... and promptly removed the open carry provisions......Basically, clipping the manhood from the bill.

It took all the wind out of the sails related to ANY argument FOR the bill.....the proponents, including the actual politicians who sponsored the bill, didn't man up and defend the bill, and since it was last minute, barring any real debate or discussion, that's the bill that got passed.

Sorry for the history lesson. LOL

Florida will get there. It took SEVERAL years to get CC passed back in the 80's. A couple years won't be the end of the world.

Anyway, wasn't looking to sidebar the thread here. I've spent a few years now shuffling around in the Florida section, thought I'd poke around outside the Florida section for awhile.

I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC. But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason. I was just pointing out that the drama does kind of go both ways. I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
"OCers will be the first to be shot."
We have not seen this to be the case. Yes there was one but one out of how many?? Statistically it is not an issue.

Actually, that was NOT a robbery where the OCer was shot because the robbers saw him with a gun after they'd started the robbery. This fellow was targeted BECAUSE he had a gun, they essentially mugged him, stole his gun, and then when he (unarmed) tried to chase and wrestle his gun back from them, they shot him.


"OCers are attention whores."
I will grant that some fall into this category. We see them posting on youtube. But those are in the minority I would bet.

Have you ever talked to someone with an "unrestricted" CC permit from MD who doesn't have it because they were brutally attacked? Most of the people who are "connected" or wealthy enough to get an Unrestricted MD permit that I've ever met are the most egregiously egocentric attention-whores that I've ever met. The entire encounter on half a dozen instances revolved around the fact that they were CCing, and nobody else was (at least not legally)...


"OCers will have their gun taken."
Again, no rush to this taking place.

Only by cops...


"OCers will be hassled by police."
Yes, this has certainly happened and it's usually in the fence sitting states (those where the demographics tend not to be so friendly to guns and gun people in general). Educating the local police is the best way to reduce this.

Only by bad cops, in localities that don't believe in the Constitution, or enjoyt being sued into oblivion.


And last but not least:
"I (CCers) want the element of 'surprise'."

What this "element of surprise" mentality REALLY means--and EVERONE needs to LISTEN to this, and realize (and ADMIT) that it is TRUE--is that CCers who believe this are the kind of people who WANT to shoot some bad guy, and are harboring vigilante tendencies. If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one. Not all CCers believe this, so I'm not saying all CCers are sociopathic vigilantes, but some are, and we ALL need to admit that, and deal with the reality of that concept...

OCers, on the other hand, put their means of defense right out in the open for all the world to see. They make their condition of preparedness, and their unwillingness to be a victim OBVIOUS. They are attempting to AVOID a violent attack in the first place--because the LAST THING that an OCer wants to do is actually draw their firearm.


Just wanted to set the record straight on some of these myths, and some of the counterpoints that Southern Boy was trying to make...
 
Last edited:

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.

I agree completely 09jisaac! It's dangerous at best to have the government sticking their noses into private property rights like that...... But, that's another rant for another thread. LOL
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
...I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC.

But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason.

I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.

There shouldn't be an "us" and "them" mentality among those who OC and those who CC.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.

If a business refuses the rights of a group, there should be an alternate solution that that group can fall back on. If you wish to refuse sales to African-Americans then, there should be another business that would sell just to African-Americans, in theory. If a business wants to deny me the right to defend myself then you bet I want a security escort through the store and out to my vehicle. My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.

I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC. But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason. I was just pointing out that the drama does kind of go both ways. I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.

Thank you for explaining to me the best you could with what was going on down there. I appreciate it. There will always be an "us versus them" mentality regarding anything, unfortunately. If constitutional carry were allowed, I'm sure there'd be a "My .45 is better than your .22 and you're wrong for using it.", "My S&W is better than your Glock and you're just hurting the cause", etc. People just need a reason to feel empowered by perceiving they're better than others. It's sad.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
If a business refuses the rights of a group, there should be an alternate solution that that group can fall back on. If you wish to refuse sales to African-Americans then, there should be another business that would sell just to African-Americans, in theory. If a business wants to deny me the right to defend myself then you bet I want a security escort through the store and out to my vehicle. My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.

This I agree on, but you don't need to come to my fictional business to be safe. If you don't like leaving you self protection at my property line then exercise your right to do business with who you choose somewhere else. I am not saying property rights trump everything else but unless you "need" to be there then you should abide by the rules of the property without government restrictions. The less government we have the more freedom we will be.

So you're into reversed racism? The government should favor any group that society rejects? If I refuse to do business with BLACKS then they need a business that only caters to them? No. The government shouldn't get involved with that at all. I am not saying it is right, all I am saying is the government has no business in that. If I was refused service at a business based on my skin color I would go somewhere else, until I found a place that would serve me. Also, they're black. Not African-American, most were born and raised in the US and have no ties (besides ancestral) to africa. I am white not a "German-American". Treat other races how you want to be treated, it is a large step against racism.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
09jisaac said:
Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter?
Property rights don't mean much to most here.
ThatOneChick said:
My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.
What she said.
Other rights matter, but the right to self-defense is at least on a par with (if not superceding) the 1A rights that businesses may not infringe: religion, speech (at least in the form of what a person is wearing), association (who you walk around the store with). Without life, none of the other rights mean anything.

And the rights of real people to determine what happens to their bodies are above the privilege of a store manager to refuse service because s/he doesn't like the property that person has with him/her.

If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to?
That's exactly what other groups have done.
When's the last time you saw a "no negros allowed" sign in a store window?
Or "Irish keep out"?
And can you imagine the uproar when someone is refused service because of a religous symbol or piece of clothing they're wearing?
If a business is open to the public, they have agreed to allow people on their property.
It's very different from a private home / property.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
What this "element of surprise" mentality REALLY means--and EVERONE needs to LISTEN to this, and realize (and ADMIT) that it is TRUE--is that CCers who believe this are the kind of people who WANT to shoot some bad guy, and are harboring vigilante tendencies. If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one. Not all CCers believe this, so I'm not saying all CCers are sociopathic vigilantes, but some are, and we ALL need to admit that, and deal with the reality of that concept...

And women shouldn't wear revealing clothes outside of their house, right? Because they are just BEGGING to be raped.

Or we can place all the blame on the predator and none of the prey. The CCer wouldn't have had to shoot if attacker wasn't an attacker. I am not saying no one wants to shoot someone, but even if they are it isn't their fault if they had to shoot someone in self defense.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
What she said.
Other rights matter, but the right to self-defense is at least on a par with (if not superceding) the 1A rights that businesses may not infringe: religion, speech (at least in the form of what a person is wearing), association (who you walk around the store with). Without life, none of the other rights mean anything.

That's exactly what other groups have done.
When's the last time you saw a "no negros allowed" sign in a store window?
Or "Irish keep out"?
And can you imagine the uproar when someone is refused service because of a religous symbol or piece of clothing they're wearing?
If a business is open to the public, they have agreed to allow people on their property.
It's very different from a private home / property.

So let me get this straight. You're reasoning is because other groups have done it means it is right? When the US was first starting out we allowed slaves. Now we moved passed that, but because whites once had blacks as slaves now blacks should be allowed to have white slaves? No. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

And you do realize that the bill of rights is what the government can't do, don't you? Not private individuals.

Yes or no, without hand picking the parameters. Do you really believe that the government should have the authority to FORCE me to do business with someone?
 
Top