autosurgeon
Regular Member
Rights in general only protect you from the Govt. Not your peers outside of the Govt.
Rights in general only protect you from the Govt. Not your peers outside of the Govt.
good pick bail, but i believe thats for a MP5K could have the model number wrong of course, and i was being somewhat sarcxastic about the ar 15 holster thing, i use a blackhawk weapon catch when sporting my AR's, i am pretty sure i said something about the blackhawk weapon catch's on an older thread, they work great and cover the trigger guard so its nice for that thing we can't talk about, and it works very well with MI pistols
If you're talking about THE Ponderosa incident I don't believe the restaurant treated people badly. They simply called the non-emergency number and asked if it was legal. They even specifically requested a car NOT be sent. It was the Lansing PD that went off the deep end.
Bronson
If you're talking about THE Ponderosa incident I don't believe the restaurant treated people badly. They simply called the non-emergency number and asked if it was legal. They even specifically requested a car NOT be sent. It was the Lansing PD that went off the deep end.
Bronson
Post some pictures, videos and commentary of you open carrying a rifle on the forum and john will stick you in opencarry prison. Just going by the video he starred in earlier this year he may have his way with you too...
What a concept! Private property rights still do exist!
Don't let sone people around here know about that. They'll insist the private property rights be forfeited in the name of "public accommodation" and their rights being "violated" (by someone else asserting their own rights).
Not to detail this thread, but I have to call out Bail enforcer. If a private property/public accommodation owner has no rights to prohibit you from carrying on their property (2A) what right do the operators of THIS public accommodation have to limit what you say here (1A)?
Maybe you'll say they have no such right? If you argue they do have that right, I'd be shocked as that would be horribly logically inconsistent of you...
Rights in general only protect you from the Govt. Not your peers outside of the Govt.
Tell that to the folks who say we can force any public accommodation (private business) to allow open carry. They're around here. Some are in the leadership of MOC. Don't strain yourself looking.
Wait a minute you being sarcastic, I refuse to believe that...
yes that is the lovely mp5k and I get all warm and fuzzy feeling when I touch those lol... That would be my Sunday go to meetin weapon of choice.
What a concept! Private property rights still do exist!
Don't let sone people around here know about that. They'll insist the private property rights be forfeited in the name of "public accommodation" and their rights being "violated" (by someone else asserting their own rights).
Not to detail this thread, but I have to call out Bail enforcer. If a private property/public accommodation owner has no rights to prohibit you from carrying on their property (2A) what right do the operators of THIS public accommodation have to limit what you say here (1A)?
Maybe you'll say they have no such right? If you argue they do have that right, I'd be shocked as that would be horribly logically inconsistent of you...
This site is "membership" based and thus is NOT a public accommodation, but you knew this, and your intellectual dishonesty once again shows.
An opinion.... unasked for and worth exactly what was paid for it....
The natural born "right to life" supersedes all other rights, including "property rights" because once a person is dead they do not have any "rights" what so ever.... they are dead.
It makes no difference if the "property" is someone's back yard and I am attacked by a neighbor's pit bull................ or if the "property" is a business open to the public and I am attacked by a criminal.... I, and every other living human being, has the natural right to defend my "right to life" in order to continue to live regardless of who owns the property the attack happen on.
Here is a simple concept..... and my personal belief...
With "rights" come "responsibility". When a "property owner" invites a person or group of persons onto their property for any reason then it is the "property owners" responsibility to either honor the individual's right to defend their own life... or accept the responsibility to defend their life while they are on the property.
With "rights" come "responsibility". When a "property owner" invites a person or group of persons onto their property for any reason then it is the "property owners" responsibility to either honor the individual's right to defend their own life... or accept the responsibility to defend their life while they are on the property.
When a "property owner" invites a person or group of persons onto their property for any reason then it is the "property owners" responsibility to either honor the individual's right to defend their own life... or accept the responsibility to defend their life while they are on the property.
Even accepting of responsibility, one can not guarantee my right to life, thus my right to defend my own life I hold so dear is unalienable and this means I can't surrender or abrogate this right.
But you can always not do business there.
Once again, I suspect we won't ever agree on this point.
But a few facts
1. Anyone from the public can get a "membership".
2. It costs nothing.
3. The membership only exists to identify who the poster is.
This doesn't pass the smell test of a private membership thing. Let's say there was no sign-up/in. Instead it was a blog and all you had to do to leave a comment was leave "a" name.
The blog has rules posted. If you don't follow the rules can the blog master block your IP address?
In all due respect you never made a point and still you evade the Founding Fathers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Judge Andrew Napolitano's recent and consistent interpretation. Your only defense is one can not do business? I hate to belabor this but the Nazi party had an identical view of rights. And eventually it lead to many businesses refusing to serve Jews. I reject a fascist view of property rights as dangerous. Corporations in no way can usurp rights and I know full well the second you are treated in this manner you will be screaming. Maybe we can restrict people's rights who work for any Government agency as well, this would be much more plausible than to assume that a business has the rights to remove mine. That was part of the Fascist party platform, and sadly I am all too familiar with it.
I strongly suggest you do research on the Fascists and their views and you may be uncomfortable with your commonality of views.
It is perfectly fine to be wrong, and be enough of an intellectual to see the errors and admit you are merely human, it is unforgivable to hold to a disastrous ideal to save face as nothing is saved.
Membership is not a financial definition it is an agreement in principle. This site does to block my view of another store in a mall, it exists merely as something I or you sought out.
Damn dude. I'm tired of you quoting a retired judge who has less current power in government than my pinky finger (I'm a civil servant and work in IT). What's more is, he never served in the Michigan Circuit. His opinion is just that, his opinion. Are you not intelligent enough to make your own reasoned argument without dropping someone else's name. I hope so.
Until you do, sadly, I cannot have a reasoned discussion with you.
Care to address the point I made about the blog scenario in the same post?
Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
But a few facts
1. Anyone from the public can get a "membership".
2. It costs nothing.
3. The membership only exists to identify who the poster is.
This doesn't pass the smell test of a private membership thing. Let's say there was no sign-up/in. Instead it was a blog and all you had to do to leave a comment was leave "a" name.
The blog has rules posted. If you don't follow the rules can the blog master block your IP address?