- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is how you 2nd Amendment
Posted on 1/30/19 at 3:47 pm to LSUconvert
Posted on 1/30/19 at 3:47 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Your right to carry firearm is not above my right as a business owner to not allow fire arms. It's really as simple as that.
Under my system you have the right to deny allowing firearms, provided you actually prevent firearms from being on your premises. Otherwise, you and your guests are fish in a barrel for those who mean them harm.
1
Posted on 1/30/19 at 3:50 pm to VOR
quote:
That approach didn’t work out that well in many places during the 19fh Century.
It didn't? Despite it's "Wild West" reputation, the American West was statistically incredibly safe relative not just to today, but relative to every other time and place in American history. LINK
Posted on 1/30/19 at 3:57 pm to kingbob
quote:
Under my system you have the right to deny allowing firearms, provided you actually prevent firearms from being on your premises. Otherwise, you and your guests are fish in a barrel for those who mean them harm.
So... you disagree with the fundamentals of the constitution?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:00 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
You need a license for a car
bullshite.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:04 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
So... you disagree with the fundamentals of the constitution?
That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed?
You will have to be more specific. What clause is my concept in violation of?
I do not pretend like I would be a Constitutional dictator, merely a crazed despot with some weird ideas that I'd like to see the results of. More like a mad scientist, but with the social sciences.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:04 pm to LSUconvert
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
quote:
my right as a business owner to not allow fire arms
quote:
So... you disagree with the fundamentals of the constitution?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:05 pm to troyt37
quote:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
By the government. Please read. Anything. The constitution, the bible. Anything. Just read words on a page.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:07 pm to kingbob
quote:
That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed?
By the government!
It also outlines the other rights that people have, including the right to ownership of property. If I, as a property owner, say that guns are not allowed on the premises, saying that the government should force me to do anything different ON MY PROPERTY is as anti-constitution as you can get.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:08 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
By the government. Please read. Anything. The constitution, the bible. Anything. Just read words on a page.
Et tu Brute? The subject was the fundamentals of the Constitution, and it strongly appears that if anyone here disagrees with the fundamentals of the Constitution, it's you.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:09 pm to troyt37
quote:
The subject was the fundamentals of the Constitution, and it strongly appears that if anyone here disagrees with the fundamentals of the Constitution, it's you.
Because I disagree government should have any say on what I do on my own private property?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:12 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
If I, as a property owner, say that guns are not allowed on the premises, saying that the government should force me to do anything different ON MY PROPERTY is as anti-constitution as you can get.
Do they not have the authority to tell you what you can do on your own property? Try growing anything, or digging a hole, or building a house, etc.
Like I said, you can disallow guns, provided you allow your guests a secure location to store them.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:12 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
By the government.
Thats the dumbest one I've heard in a while.
Pat yourself on the back......some more.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:13 pm to kingbob
quote:
Do they not have the authority to tell you what you can do on your own property?
They shouldn't. Whether they do or not has nothing to do with what the constitution says.
What you're advocating for is a gross overstep in government power. The exact kind the founding fathers warned against.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:17 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
What you're advocating for is a gross overstep in government power.
So, it's a gross overstep of government authority to tell you you need to have a location to store your guests' guns provided you decide not to allow them to carry guns on your land, but it is not an abuse of government power to tell you that you cannot build what you want on your land without a permit? You're ok with the idea that the government can tell you what to hunt, what to eat, what to buy, and how you can use your land, BUT it's a step too far for you to have to have a gun safe to store your guest's guns so that they can carry them with them when they leave and not get mugged on the way home?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:18 pm to kingbob
quote:
So, it's a gross overstep of government authority to tell you you need to have a location to store your guests' guns provided you decide not to allow them to carry guns on your land, but it is not an abuse of government power to tell you that you cannot build what you want on your land without a permit?
Both are gross oversteps.
quote:
You're ok with the idea that the government can tell you what to hunt, what to eat, what to buy, and how you can use your land
Don't say shite about me like you know me
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:20 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Because I disagree government should have any say on what I do on my own private property?
No, because you choose to remove the right of Liberty and self defense from anyone on your property.
I respect your property rights, I just think you should have to notify any potential customers that they have no right to life, liberty, or self defense on your property. Then they can choose whether to respect your rights, as you trample on theirs.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:26 pm to troyt37
quote:
No, because you choose to remove the right of Liberty and self defense from anyone on your property.
That's my right, isn't it?
quote:
I just think you should have to notify any potential customers that they have no right to life, liberty, or self defense on your property.
quote:
I respect your property rights
That's... not what respecting my rights means.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:26 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Don't say shite about me like you know me
Ok, your neighbor is throwing a loud party at 3:00am on a Wednesday morning. You have to be up at work at 6:00am. Their party is keeping you from being able to sleep. What are your rights against them? Should the government help you to stop their good time or compensate you for your loss of enjoyment to your property? Would such a mechanism not curtail your neighbor's liberty to enjoy his private property? Property rights are far from unlimited.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:27 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
That's... not what respecting my rights means.
What's more important, your rights or everyone else's rights? That's the problem with rights. Everyone's rights always intersect. You cannot protect one person's rights without violating the rights of another. That is why rights have limits. This thought exercise is all about challenging our conventional notions of what those frontiers should be and imagine what life would be like if we set the arbitrary boundary just in a little bit different location.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 1/30/19 at 4:28 pm to kingbob
quote:
Should the government help you to stop their good time or compensate you for your loss of enjoyment to your property?
No, the government should not.
Anymore questions?
Really, your viewpoint is perfectly valid. It just contradicts the constitution. If you think otherwise please explain how taking how property owner rights, in favor of gun owner rights is constitutional?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News