Ponderosa Steakhouse in Ludington robbed

[Bailenforcer]

That is why they additionally had a Bill of Rights to make sure these arguments are not taking place, but those who argue refuse to read this...

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Yes.. the right to life takes priority over all other rights because (warning! common sense about to be used!) without life all the other "rights" become moot!

No life ='s no rights what so ever.

So yes, the right to Life is more important, in fact is the most important right, than any other right.... including the idea that some self important property owner has the right to deny others the right to defend their lives.

But... please comment on the concept that with rights comes responsibilities. Do you believe that rights carry responsibilities?

Who decides which rights have the highest priority? See the above about "responsibilities".

 

[Bailenforcer]

Where in the Bill of Rights is a "legal" person?

NO Where! Why? Quite simple, the founders knew that a legal person could be argued thus they made sure the entire Constitution, and Bill of Rights were about "Natural BORN Persons" not legal or fictional persons. A Corporation is not a Natural BORN Person thus is not entitled to protections under the BILL of Rights. Again Common sense is our guide. You have been indoctrinated into obedience to despotism which is sad, yet it is never too late to shed those chains of serfdom.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

I believe entities (person or "legal person") bear the outcome of their choices. If you don't like a store's firearm policy you have 4 choices in my book:

1. Cover it up and pretend you don't have a gun (not an ideal choice).
2. Go in naked w/o a gun and accept the risks that cone with that.
3. Shop somewhere else.
4. Hire someone to run the errand for you who doesn't tote a gun.

 

[TheQ]

Where in the Bill of Rights is a "legal" person?

NO Where! Why? Quite simple, the founders knew that a legal person could be argued thus they made sure the entire Constitution, and Bill of Rights were about "Natural BORN Persons" not legal or fictional persons. A Corporation is not a Natural BORN Person thus is not entitled to protections under the BILL of Rights. Again Common sense is our guide. You have been indoctrinated into obedience to despotism which is sad, yet it is never too late to shed those chains of serfdom.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The bill of rights also only protect you from the Federal (and recently the State and local) government, not your fellow citizen -- "legal" or real.

 

[Bikenut]

I believe entities (person or "legal person") bear the outcome of their choices. If you don't like a store's firearm policy you have 4 choices in my book:

1. Cover it up and pretend you don't have a gun (not an ideal choice).
2. Go in naked w/o a gun and accept the risks that cone with that.
3. Shop somewhere else.
4. Hire someone to run the errand for you who doesn't tote a gun.

That does not address the question of whether or not you believe that rights come with responsibilities.

If people were to be responsible with rights then the store would not have a restrictive firearm policy because................ the store would recognize the simple fact that everyone has a right to life and the defense of that life. Now... just because a store is irresponsible you are saying I am the one who is in the wrong? The store... some dude who never met me... has the right to put my life in danger? And he has the right to cause me to take the risk of dying just because he thinks his property rights supersede the right every human has to continue living?

And please stop with the old .... You don't have to shop there. You can go somewhere else. .... because doing that rewards the property owner's irresponsible behavior just as much as bowing down to his irresponsible no gun policy by shopping there.

The right to life is a natural right.... it is the one and only perfect right because all other rights stem from the right to live. The right to free speech does a corpse no good because no one can hear shouts from 6 feet under. (that is a joke) Property rights do a corpse no good when a criminal ignores the "NO GUNS" sign and shoots the place up. (that is not a joke).

Rights come with responsibilities and the exercising of those responsibilities is actually how rights work. And that everyone... everyone including property owners... have the responsibility to respect the rights, all the rights, that others have.

Everyone has the responsibility to respect everyone's rights.... it is NOT ok for a property owner to disrespect the rights of others because he is exercising his rights as a property owner in an irresponsible manner....

And if you truly believe that entities bear the outcome of their choices then you would have no problem with a store with a no gun policy that has a criminal come in and kill a customer paying damages to the victim's family. In short, you would have no problem with a store that denies the right to self defense being responsible for your defense... or suffering the consequences of not providing for your defense.

 

[TheQ]

And please stop with the old .... You don't have to shop there. You can go somewhere else. .... because doing that rewards the property owner's irresponsible behavior just as much as bowing down to his irresponsible no gun policy by shopping there.

The store is only rewarded economically if a sale occurs. This of course assumes the store sells goods with a profitable margin. I think that's a safe assumption because what competent business man routinely sells stuff at a loss?

 

[Bikenut]

The store is only rewarded economically if a sale occurs. This of course assumes the store sells goods with a profitable margin. I think that's a safe assumption because what competent business man routinely sells stuff at a loss?

Have you heard of the term "tacit agreement"?

from:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit

tac·it (t

s

t)adj.

1. Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2. a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements

Your statement that a sale must occur before the store is rewarded is incorrect. The store is rewarded by the positive reinforcement of it's policy. Going elsewhere is the same thing as agreeing with that irresponsible policy because no effort was expended in fighting it.

 

[TheQ]

Have you heard of the term "tacit agreement"?

from:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit

tac·it (t

s

t)adj.

1. Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2. a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements

Your statement that a sale must occur before the store is rewarded is incorrect. The store is rewarded by the positive reinforcement of it's policy. Going elsewhere is the same thing as agreeing with that irresponsible policy because no effort was expended in fighting it.

But no business profit gained either. So the only benefit is a "moral" one. Sadly, there are many companies that feel good, yet still go bankrupt.

A true victory for the store would be if you went to your car, dropped off your piece, and went back in to shop. That'd send the store the wrong message - that they can dictate all the terms to you and you'll still shop there.

I'm not saying you can't call the manager later and try to change his mind. I'm just saying at the end of the day, he's responsible for the profit/loss and ergo makes the final decisions about store policy.

 

[Bikenut]

But no business profit gained either. So the only benefit is a "moral" one. Sadly, there are many companies that feel good, yet still go bankrupt.

A true victory for the store would be if you went to your car, dropped off your piece, and went back in to shop. That'd send the store the wrong message - that they can dictate all the terms to you and you'll still shop there.

I'm not saying you can't call the manager later and try to change his mind. I'm just saying at the end of the day, he's responsible for the profit/loss and ergo makes the final decisions about store policy.

Not quite true.. since no effort was made to bring to light the store's irresponsible policy that violates its customer's "right to live" many customers, unaware of said policy, continue to shop there creating profit for that store which means the tacit approval of all the gun owners who went elsewhere most certainly did benefit that store.

But I'm still curious... do you believe that rights come with responsibilities?

And since you said in an earlier post that "entities bear the outcome of their choices"

I believe entities (person or "legal person") bear the outcome of their choices. If you don't like a store's firearm policy you have 4 choices in my book:

1. Cover it up and pretend you don't have a gun (not an ideal choice).
2. Go in naked w/o a gun and accept the risks that cone with that.
3. Shop somewhere else.
4. Hire someone to run the errand for you who doesn't tote a gun.

would you agree with the following?

If entities bear the outcome of their choices then a store with a no gun policy that has a criminal come in and kill a customer is responsible for paying damages to the victim's family. In short a store that denies the right to self defense should be responsible for your defense... or suffer the consequences of not providing for your defense. You know ... "bear the outcome of their choices".

 

[Bailenforcer]

A corporation is Government.

The bill of rights also only protect you from the Federal (and recently the State and local) government, not your fellow citizen -- "legal" or real.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

uh,, was there another ponderosa robbed?? trying to stay on topic.....:uhoh:

and anytime i post here in this thread i will be in a rain coat.......

 

[Gort]

Suspect Caught In Florida

Good, they got him!
http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/53793-man-wanted--in-ponderosa--robbery-arrested-in-florida

 

[NHCGRPR45]

excellent!