Half of INGO thinks it's okay for the government to force property owners to allow their employees to have firearms on the property. It should come as no surprise that society would feel the same about the use of government to compel people to behave in particular ways.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Private property: 2A rights vs civil rights
- Thread starter Liberty1911
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Half of INGO thinks it's okay for the government to force property owners to allow their employees to have firearms on the property. It should come as no surprise that society would feel the same about the use of government to compel people to behave in particular ways.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Property rights should trump all rights period. If you are on private property willingly then you should have to play by their rules no matter how stupid, racist, sexist they are. It's THEIR property. It's unwise for a business to take an unpopular stance. If someone wants to post a sign that says "No Blacks" more power to them, but they will have to pay the price of taking an unpopular position, it will cost them not only the business of those they discriminate against, but also all of those who will be outraged by it too. That seems fair to me.
The US government cannot infringe on our 2A rights, but private businesses should be free to infringe on the rights of whatever customers they please. You don't have to offer your business if you don't agree. Don't subject yourself to something you don't agree with. Problem solved.
The US government cannot infringe on our 2A rights, but private businesses should be free to infringe on the rights of whatever customers they please. You don't have to offer your business if you don't agree. Don't subject yourself to something you don't agree with. Problem solved.
Regarding your post and your tag line (Nothing I own is worth your life and your life means less than the things I own), what do you think Jesus would say about either of those?
After 16 years of Catholic school, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but it's your karma, not mine.
Exactly. Seems like just as basic a freedom as all the others we strive to protect.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
I think Jesus also made the comment to the effect of sell your belongings to buy a sword.
No, somebody wrote that in crayon in the margin of your bible.
I sincerely hope you wrote that in jest. If you really believe that, you are seriously confused about Christianity.
eldirector
Grandmaster
What confuses me is why folks want to extend 2A "rights" to private property. The 2nd only limits the government. It doesn't say one lick about limiting an other group.
My own opinion: I have the right to self defense anywhere that I am .In contrast, if someone doesn't want me (or my possessions) on their property, then they can prevent me from entering or ask me to leave. I don't have the right to enter someone's property by force or threat, or by deceit. Property owner's can't prevent me from defending myself if they have allowed me to be there.
My own opinion: I have the right to self defense anywhere that I am .In contrast, if someone doesn't want me (or my possessions) on their property, then they can prevent me from entering or ask me to leave. I don't have the right to enter someone's property by force or threat, or by deceit. Property owner's can't prevent me from defending myself if they have allowed me to be there.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
I was not saying it in jest and someone posted up some scripture to back it up.
eldirector
Grandmaster
And we aren't really even supposed to discussing it.
Prometheus
Master
First of all, drop the 2a rights nonsense.
The Bill Of Rights ENUMERATE Rights. They do NOT grant or give them.
Rights PRE DATE the Constitution. Remember the Constitution wasn't signed and ratified until 1878. Heck, America had TEN presidents prior to that.
All these questions can be traced back to one simple question: "Who owns it?"
In this case, does the (armed) person have a RIGHT to be there? In the case of business? No. The business owner allows people the PRIVILEGE of visiting/shopping there.
This was very simple and clear cut back before modern day corporations. Corporations are a fictitious entity, created by the government. They don't have Rights, like a human being does. That's another can of worms however.
Back to the topic, a property owner has a RIGHT to deny service, entrance, or whatever.
Under our tyrannical system of law, certain rights of property owners go out the window because they decide to make a living (open a business), such as this idiotic notion of "civil" rights.
It's B.S. An INDIVIDUAL has rights. Society, does not.
Just because the government got it wrong on civil rights, doesn't mean they should get it wrong again.
I agree with others here. I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate in todays information age.
How long do you think McDonalds (or whoever) would last if they put up a sign saying <insert race, sex, sexual orientation here> not allowed?
They'd be out of business in no time. Who would patronize such a place? Very few I suspect.
Wouldn't you like to KNOW the owner of the store you are shopping at is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and then take your money else where?
The Bill Of Rights ENUMERATE Rights. They do NOT grant or give them.
Rights PRE DATE the Constitution. Remember the Constitution wasn't signed and ratified until 1878. Heck, America had TEN presidents prior to that.
All these questions can be traced back to one simple question: "Who owns it?"
In this case, does the (armed) person have a RIGHT to be there? In the case of business? No. The business owner allows people the PRIVILEGE of visiting/shopping there.
This was very simple and clear cut back before modern day corporations. Corporations are a fictitious entity, created by the government. They don't have Rights, like a human being does. That's another can of worms however.
Back to the topic, a property owner has a RIGHT to deny service, entrance, or whatever.
Under our tyrannical system of law, certain rights of property owners go out the window because they decide to make a living (open a business), such as this idiotic notion of "civil" rights.
It's B.S. An INDIVIDUAL has rights. Society, does not.
Just because the government got it wrong on civil rights, doesn't mean they should get it wrong again.
I agree with others here. I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate in todays information age.
How long do you think McDonalds (or whoever) would last if they put up a sign saying <insert race, sex, sexual orientation here> not allowed?
They'd be out of business in no time. Who would patronize such a place? Very few I suspect.
Wouldn't you like to KNOW the owner of the store you are shopping at is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and then take your money else where?
There have only been maybe a dozen places that I have ever seen big signs telling me I am not welcome. I am a CC type, for my own reasons, and I will continue to CC.
About 1/2 of the time, I have gone to their competitors and made my purchase, maybe even a few extra things. I photo copied the receipt making sure it told the date. I mailed the receipt to their store managers asking them what measures they have done to keep all the customers including my wife and myself safe. Since they do not care about my life and want the freedom to ban me from protecting myself, I will continue to exercise my freedom to spend my money where I feel safe. If it is a corporate business, I send a copy of the letter to the regional or national office. I have never gotten a reply.
I still feel that I am doing some good. I kind of think the corporate types kind of ignore complaining via email and the internet. If they get enough letters, particularly in this tough economy, maybe they will reconsider.
About 1/2 of the time, I have gone to their competitors and made my purchase, maybe even a few extra things. I photo copied the receipt making sure it told the date. I mailed the receipt to their store managers asking them what measures they have done to keep all the customers including my wife and myself safe. Since they do not care about my life and want the freedom to ban me from protecting myself, I will continue to exercise my freedom to spend my money where I feel safe. If it is a corporate business, I send a copy of the letter to the regional or national office. I have never gotten a reply.
I still feel that I am doing some good. I kind of think the corporate types kind of ignore complaining via email and the internet. If they get enough letters, particularly in this tough economy, maybe they will reconsider.
It's been awhile since I've studied this part of history, so my facts may be off a bit...but the reason it is the way it is is because certain groups of people were discriminated against in "public accommodations" provided by private property owners. Since the "market" was not causing the necessary corrections fast enough, legislation was deemed necessary to remedy this unfairness. More legislation, backed up by court decisions have engrained this paradigm into our societal norms.
People shouldn't refuse to rent property, serve hamburgers, make loans, etc to people based solely on religion, race. etc. but it should be their right to do so. But I don't think you'll ever see this civil rights override of property rights reversed...instead, we have other groups of people seeking to obtain this protected, accommodated status and there are many, even here, that are ok with it.
Which is a perfect illustration of private property rights, virtual style.
Only one question...is it at least cool that I carry while here
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Hotrod41
- fro65
- Bobby
- indiucky
- whitemamba91
- HoughMade
- mgross28
- Flingarrows
- koenig clone
- d.kaufman
- slims2002
- brown trix
- Businessend
- Mgderf
- DragonGunner
- yetti462
- turnerdye1
- John Trap
- Glock_22
- shootersix
- medavis428@
- daspurlock
- Emerson Dambiggins
- yotehunt
- rbhargan
- cmann250
- Lilboog82
- deo62
- billmyn
- thedreamer
- Keoliver
- Scott58
- Ingomike
- ol' poke
- AKMSU
- den57
- HighpowerIndiana
- Relax_36
- skydelta34
- TR1032
- jbm1521
- nad63
- crookcountygo
- xwing
- Maverick
- rudyman
- morve80
- dsol
- mcoppers
- acd1010
