RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!

[marshaul]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Batousaii wrote:

 "What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal?  I am referring to jacket and tie type places. "

They would likely have to become "club style" because at that point, and as a club, they could say that doing this, wearing that, or not having your gun, is part of belonging to, or retaining privilege to that club. So businesses that were either coat and tie, or seriously ant-gun could utilise a membership system to curtail their environmental conditions, at that point they are not "open to the general public".

So to operate a nice restaurant you have to only be open to members?  Seems sort of silly.

This is the sort of ridiculous conclusion that people come to when they're so keen to strip others of their rights because they don't like, in this case, that others have a right to ban guns on private property.

What kind of a free society is it where one must start a "club" merely to require coat and tie?

What the hell do you people want to do to private property?

Honestly, it's time for the collectivists and the socialists to GTFO my country.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

The fact is that some rights overlap, and sometimes contradict, and to that end, someone will get shorted. The final choice usually defined by the more logical, or as can be seen, the more popular opinion. The two wholes cannot fit in the same space, and though both may be right, one will ultimately succumb to the others rights as being more fundamental (or in cases popular).

Wrong. Rights are defined by their very property that they may never overlap. This is like, enlightenment 101.

Please stop parroting illogic created for the sole purpose of abrogating right.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Washington State law says "No shirt, No shoes, no service" So your example is lacking at best. 

So, in order for the law to render heresolong's premise irrelevant, it must prohibit me from allowing shirtless patrons?

WTF is that? I can't run both a classy black tie joint and a shirtless dive bar in the same state?

Why do Washingtonians seem to hate freedom so much, huh?

Honestly I think I've experienced more pro-private property sentiment here in San Francisco than you guys are displaying today.

Y'all ought to be ashamed.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Batousaii wrote:

"What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places."

They would likely have to become "club style" because at that point, and as a club, they could say that doing this, wearing that, or not having your gun, is part of belonging to, or retaining privilege to that club. So businesses that were either coat and tie, or seriously ant-gun could utilise a membership system to curtail their environmental conditions, at that point they are not "open to the general public".

So to operate a nice restaurant you have to only be open to members? Seems sort of silly.

This is the sort of ridiculous conclusion that people come to when they're so keen to strip others of their rights because they don't like, in this case, that others have a right to ban guns on private property.

What kind of a free society is it where one must start a "club" merely to require coat and tie?

What the hell do you people want to do to private property?

Honestly, it's time for the collectivists and the socialists to GTFO my country.

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist? To keep anyresturant exclusive is real easy, raisetheir prices to where either the unwashedcan't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist?  To keep any resturant exclusive is real easy, raise their prices to where either the unwashed can't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

No, I simply feel that private property owners should be able to do what they please.

I plan to buy property in the near future, and it's exactly this kind of crap that I have to avoid when searching for a state where is a sane investment.

The way it stands, most Americans, including this board apparently, would strip me of all my rights.

I'll have none of it.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist? To keep anyresturant exclusive is real easy, raisetheir prices to where either the unwashedcan't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

No, I simply feel that private property owners should be able to do what they please.

I plan to buy property in the near future, and it's exactly this kind of crap that I have to avoid when searching for a state where is a sane investment.

The way it stands, most Americans, including this board apparently, would strip me of all my rights.

I'll have none of it.

So you don't see the difference between, let's say your home and a business that isinvites the public insothey can make money? That's like saying thereis no difference between the USA and Commie China. They are just both countries.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist? To keep anyresturant exclusive is real easy, raisetheir prices to where either the unwashedcan't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

No, I simply feel that private property owners should be able to do what they please.

I plan to buy property in the near future, and it's exactly this kind of crap that I have to avoid when searching for a state where is a sane investment.

The way it stands, most Americans, including this board apparently, would strip me of all my rights.

I'll have none of it.

If you want "anything goes" property rights, buy your own island and stop trying to bend everyone to your absolutist will.

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Honestly, it's time for the collectivists and the socialists to GTFO my country.

Do NOT be rude, we are having a civil debate here, and your etiquette and social grace are out of line. Your sir, have come to interject your thoughts from out of state, and we humbly accept your opinion so long as you are not insulting to us. I would kindly request you rescind your insults, and refrain from further. I have not, nor shall i be rude to you, nor call you names, or brand you warrantless titles. Most of us, myself included,were simply acknowledging apossible mechanic of the scenario, not stating what i/we believe, nor was insisting this is how it should be.

:?Bat

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

marshaul wrote:

 Honestly, it's time for the collectivists and the socialists to GTFO my country.

Do NOT be rude, we are having a civil debate here, and your etiquette and social grace are out of line. Your sir, have come to interject your thoughts from out of state, and we humbly accept your opinion so long as you are not insulting to us. I would kindly request you rescind your insults, and refrain from further. I have not, nor shall i be rude to you, nor call you names, or brand you warrantless titles. Most of us, myself included, were simply acknowledging a possible mechanic of the scenario, not stating what i/we believe, nor was insisting this is how it should be.

:? Bat

Actually, I'm not going to apologize this time. I'm going to take the ixtow stance.

You assault my rights? You call down the fire.

Now, with that said, that statement was intended generally, and not at anyone specific. But, hey, if you think the shoe fits... Who am I to argue?

On the other hand, if that was not a position you yourself advocate, but merely an explanation of how things may pan out, then rest assured my remark wasn't aimed at you in the first place, but was instead aimed at the people whose position you were articulating on their behalf.

I have no intention of insulting the entire forum. But, somewhere out there, there are people who hate my property rights. I hope that every one of these people was personally offended by my comment.

To put it another way, that was not an imperative directing *you* to GTFO. It was a suggestion that collectivists and socialists ought to GTFO. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that suggestion applies to you.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist?  To keep any resturant exclusive is real easy, raise their prices to where either the unwashed can't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

No, I simply feel that private property owners should be able to do what they please.

I plan to buy property in the near future, and it's exactly this kind of crap that I have to avoid when searching for a state where is a sane investment.

The way it stands, most Americans, including this board apparently, would strip me of all my rights.

I'll have none of it.

If you want "anything goes" property rights, buy your own island and stop trying to bend everyone to your absolutist will.

You really are a cherry-picker, you know that? On every issue, in every debate. Not a lick of principle, just your own self-service.

That's your right. Just don't expect your arguments to impress. I love how *you* call *me* the absolutist!

Your position in life is basically the following: "Government's prime duty is executing people. Government doesn't execute enough people (despite the fact that, if it did, I and everyone on this forum would probably be among the executed, thanks to all the draconian laws on the books). Therefore, everyone in government is a traitor who needs to be executed".

Talk about absolutism!

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

marshaul, If unnable to be civil, I would kindly request you return to your proper state then and allow us to continue ourrespectful debate without infringement of your rash commentary. If your unable to continue in a polite and civil manner, then what exactly do you hope to accomplish by insulting us here in WA. Your fervent and heated mannerism will only prove to incite and complicate an otherwise interesting and educational discussion that we were respectfully debating amongst each other. I often agree with your stance marshaul, and haveat timesbacked your position in discussion forum,however if this should be your way of disagreeing, then for future reference i could only consider your stance to be off balance and perhaps too passionate to debate clearly or with any honor, and thus unsupportable.


respectfully,

Bat

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

marshaul, If unnable to be civil, I would kindly request you return to your proper state then and allow us to continue our respectful debate without infringement of your rash commentary. If your unable to continue in a polite and civil manner, then what exactly do you hope to accomplish by insulting us here in WA. Your fervent and heated mannerism will only prove to incite and complicate an otherwise interesting and educational discussion that we were respectfully debating amongst each other. I often agree with your stance marshaul, and have at times backed your position in discussion forum, however if this should be your way of disagreeing, then for future reference i could only consider your stance to be off balance and perhaps too passionate to debate clearly or with any honor, and thus unsupportable.


respectfully,

 Bat

There is no "honor" in dispassionate discussion when the topic of discussion is matters of right.

But of course I'm sure you understand this.

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

I am directly requesting that you stop being rude marshaul.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

I am directly requesting that you stop being rude marshaul.

Try dropping the PC crap. There are no Constitutional protects for you tender little feelings.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

I am directly requesting that you stop being rude marshaul.

I suppose I'd have to be being rude in order to comply.

Perhaps I ought to directly request that you stop taking offense?

Or would that be rude? :shock:

Methinks nothing will be considered "polite" at this juncture but an apology on my part, which will not be forthcoming as there is nobody to apologize to.

There are but two groups:

those I did not intend to offend.

those I insulted.

The first group is not in need of an apology, merely a recognition that any rudeness they felt directed their way was merely an error of unskilled communication. Or, perhaps they would accept as an apology my humble admission of my own inadequacies and failure to direct my emotions with sufficient precision?

The second group is not deserving of an apology.

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

felling? You mean like recoil right ?.. lol, no... noemotions on a topic here ... no mind, no sword ... however i do believe that the image set before yourself is paramount to the health of the pro-2A movement. And that should we be shown, nothing more than dogs biting at each others heals in an effort to assume the alpha-male position, then we would prove the anti-gun hysterics to be at least somewhat true. Therefore i would ask you fine gentlemen to show your social grace and set a better example than the one imagined by the Brady campaign. As for PC .. i have to laugh.. if you only really knew me, PC is indeed a fallacy. Simply, i do believe, manners and etiquette's are the natural defining points of an individuals character, and shows one's ability to maneuver throughout a conversation with intellect and courtesy, and provides the recipients with tools needed to reply in kind. To fore go proper manners is to embarrass ones peers and kin, and i sir choose not to fore go my civility in any event...

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Look, I actually agree with you, and I've said as much myself elsewhere on this forum. I'm going to do my best to remain civil from here on out, for that very reason.

But, asking me to recant my remarks about socialists who hate my property rights... that's going too far, man!

You've made your point, taken the high ground. I laud you for this. Now, let's move on.

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

Thank you marshaul, and apreciated.
alas, it is time for work, i shall see you gents later.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So regardless of your avatar your are an elitist? To keep anyresturant exclusive is real easy, raisetheir prices to where either the unwashedcan't afford you or they will be wise enough to not want to associate with you.

No, I simply feel that private property owners should be able to do what they please.

I plan to buy property in the near future, and it's exactly this kind of crap that I have to avoid when searching for a state where is a sane investment.

The way it stands, most Americans, including this board apparently, would strip me of all my rights.

I'll have none of it.

If you want "anything goes" property rights, buy your own island and stop trying to bend everyone to your absolutist will.

You really are a cherry-picker, you know that? On every issue, in every debate. Not a lick of principle, just your own self-service.

That's your right. Just don't expect your arguments to impress. I love how *you* call *me* the absolutist!

Your position in life is basically the following: "Government's prime duty is executing people. Government doesn't execute enough people (despite the fact that, if it did, I and everyone on this forum would probably be among the executed, thanks to all the draconian laws on the books). Therefore, everyone in government is a traitor who needs to be executed".

Talk about absolutism!

I highlight your own words, what you did to me just there was make stuff up. Foul.

My position in life is that people who try to, or help, make me dead are criminals. The law, at least in theory, agrees with me. Otherwise there would be no charge for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, etc... In practice however, everyone in government is nearly completely immune from these charges if they do it in the line of service, and sometimes, even on their personal time.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

In the past, I've taken the same position as you and thought that property owners should be able to trespass anyone from their property for any reason... then I realized that places that are considered "ALL" public access must comply with the social contract that is our most basic and fundamental agreement codified in our Constitution.

So what about the property owner who wants to operate a nice restaurant. What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places. Why should he be forced to admit people wearing nothing but a pair of sandals and shorts with no shirt?

My personal opinion, although it hurts me right now as a carrier, is that property rights should be absolute. Don't like your looks, get out of my business. The proper way to punish the businesses that enact arbitrary or offensive bans on classes of people would be to refuse to do business with them, much like we do here on the board.

Washington State law says "No shirt, No shoes, no service" So your example is lacking at best.

I am going to try and get part of this discussion back to a point I am trying to understand.

Can we cite the above statements? If so what is the intent behind the law? (RCW?) Is it related to the health code?

Is a mesh see-through tank top and flip flops enough to comply with this? Or does the law describe what type of shirt and shoes meet the requirement? What if I am a disabled vet and both of my feet are missing? Do I have to be wearing shoes or can I just bring them with me?

Does this only apply to restaurants? Or does it also apply to a swimwear clothing store?

I am sure we can all see how I have played devil's advocate here, and I am sure there are dozens of more contradictory elements we could raise here.

This would all be under the premise that a private business that is open to the public is following the law. For sake of a different (but good) argument let's not think of a private club, home, business with no public access.