A liberal with a gun, OC or CC, is just as much a threat to the 2A as is the rabid anti-gun liberal. How a citizen votes defines their dedication to liberty.
A vote for a anti-gun liberal is a vote against liberty, a vote for a pro-gun liberal is a vote against liberty.
And many would point out that there is no shortage of rapid anti-gun conservatives.
We could then debate whether voting for the perfect RKBA candidate who can't get elected is actually better for or worse than voting for the decent but imperfect candidate who can win. Or do we vote pure and help throw the election to the rapid anti-gun candidate?
These are very difficult and deeply personal questions.
But bottom line, I'm not about to say a bleeding heart liberal can't be solid on RKBA and OC. And if there are those who are solid on RKBA/OC who happen to be liberal, democrats, or otherwise hold typical left-wing views on virtually every issue other than guns and self-defense, I welcome him and his help in advancing RKBA even if he and I will be on opposite sides of the table on every other issue.
In summary, laws that make unlawful the exclusion of certain citizens from private property open to the public (businesses) are a direct result of the fact that some folks can't peel off their skin color, or lock their gender, in their vehicle, not so with your pistol.
You are simply finding palatable excuses for why current anti-discrimination laws don't offend you, but why you don't care to support adding lawful possession of guns to the list. People can and do change religion or political affiliation every day. We don't allow discrimination based on religious or political affiliation.
Nobody has to broadcast his sexual orientation, nor hold hands with or otherwise show affection toward his partner/lover/spouse while in another's business. A business owner can't know a customer or employee's sexual orientation unless the person makes it known in some way. But a growing number of jurisdictions don't permit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Besides which, if we must have perfect respect for an "absolute" right to control property, why not legally permit racial or sexual discrimination? Why should peaceful non-association even for bigoted reasons be illegal under such a system?
There is no ironclad, logical reason that current discrimination laws are acceptable, but adding lawful possession of a gun would be offensive. There are only personal, emotional, "religious" reasons.
And I'm fine with that. Just be honest with what the reasons are. Don't try to claim some perfect adherence to some "objective" standard when there is no such objective standard once you concede that current anti-discrimination laws are acceptable.
Respect for private property rights is the foundation of our society.
I don't think so.
"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't see "respect for private property rights" as being among the foundational statements in either the DoI or the Constitution. Certainly, respect for property right is one important aspect of our society. But respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, for justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare are at least as important.
And society has decided that refusing goods, services, or employment to unpopular minorities runs counter to these goals.
In those jurisdictions where private bans on guns carries force of law, we should respect the law and the social order thus established until such time as we can peacefully and legally effect change.
In those jurisdictions where private bans on guns do not enjoy the backing of law, it is a personal decision how to respond to such bigoted and discriminatory practices. Sometimes, ignoring them is the proper course, I believe.
Charles
