Property Rights vs. Liberty Rights, Who SHOULD win?

[88GT]

Lets not forget gender is one of those particular protected classes.
Would you be fine with the gun store owners telling you "Sorry little lady but you need to bring your man down here if you are wanting a gun"?
Or how about we go back to the time when women couldn't own property but were rather the property of their father or husband.

You're new 'round here, so I wouldn't expect you to know it, but I'd be find with just about all of that. Chattel not so much, but it's been a very, very long time since women were seen as pure chattel and had no ownership rights. I'll do you one better. I'm fine with a repeal of the 19th. But a better way would be to limit the franchise to landed population, eliminating the gender question all together.

Pretty much never since your right to free speech does not trump another person's rights. But burn as many as you want on your own property (as long as there is not a burn ban or similar in your area)

Well, now tell me. How is it that your RKBA trumps my property rights? Or any those of any other property owners. Just how do you get to decide which set of rights trumps those of another? Do tell.

In some places crime goes down and in others it goes up? At least that is what the murder rates seem to show.

Oy. You short? Cuz that one seemed to go over your head.

Well from the other parts of her post I quoted I am taking it that she feels that she as an owner should be allowed to refuse service regardless of protected class status.She seems to want to be that business that refuses service for whatever reason.
Example

And really there is nothing wrong with it as long as the protected status is not the reason for the denial of service. It just gets difficult to defend if a pattern is evident.

You're missing the big picture. Why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate for any reason? Why do we even have protected classes? Pretend we're Taco Bell for a moment: think outside the box.

Okay, before we go any further....

There is a difference between "patronizing" and "patronage".

Somebody been using one or the other incorrectly?

 

[CX1]

Well, now tell me. How is it that your RKBA trumps my property rights? Or any those of any other property owners.

Kindly show me where I've stated that they do and I will happily edit the post.

I think it is fairly clear that I believe as far as firearms go the property owner has the final say on what is allow or not allowed to be brought on to their property.
You seem to be debating the wrong person if you think I feel my 2nd amendment trumps anyone's property rights.

For example:
If you don't want to rent to me because I have guns I completely respect that opinion since it is your property. I may feel that your policy is counter-productive but again it is your property to do with as you see fit. I do not want to give you my money that badly that I would agree to a no gun policy if you had one. I also would not pretend to comply with your policy and risk eviction should I get caught.

However if say I am your tenant in a no pet building and I get to the point that I need a service animal. My protected disability grants me the right to protest an attempt at eviction due to my service animal regardless of your pet policy and I would pursue that to the fullest extent that I could. And trust me I am a dream tenent so you would not have any other grounds to break a lease.

Why the difference in my consideration of your property rights? One is legally protected and the other is not.

 

[88GT]

Kindly show me where I've stated that they do and I will happily edit the post.

I just assumed. You're being pedantic enough and picking out the most ridiculous things to answer. It just seemed to fit the hypocrisy of someone who thought his RKBA trumped the rights of the property owner until the table was turned and he had to defend his property rights against others wishing to pull rank on him.

And you have shown a lukewarm regard for property rights.

However if say I am your tenant in a no pet building and I get to the point that I need a service animal. My protected disability grants me the right to protest an attempt at eviction due to my service animal regardless of your pet policy and I would pursue that to the fullest extent that I could. And trust me I am a dream tenent so you would not have any other grounds to break a lease.

It's been my experience that the ones who run their mouth about how good they are are usually the worst. I already don't want ya.

Why the difference in my consideration of your property rights? One is legally protected and the other is not.

Stop with the legally protected argument, will ya? I didn't ask why I can't. I asked why I shouldn't be allowed to. If you need me to rephrase the question, let's try this: why do we have laws infringing the property rights of property owners at all? Why do you think there should be laws prohibiting my discrimination based on anything or everything?

 

[Ted]

You're new 'round here, so I wouldn't expect you to know it, but I'd be find with just about all of that. Chattel not so much, but it's been a very, very long time since women were seen as pure chattel and had no ownership rights. I'll do you one better. I'm fine with a repeal of the 19th. But a better way would be to limit the franchise to landed population, eliminating the gender question all together.......

There certainly is a prominent and taboo subculture that endorses such beliefs. Women as property for servitude and pleasure.

I didn't know that you were into that.

 

[sepe]

I was thinking something similar to the person who checks your Sam's Club card at the door. Have the appropriate firearm certification and you go right in, no certificate and you get a wand type weapon check. If wand beeps you either produce the object in question for temporary storage or leave. It would not necessitate a large amount of additional staff.

If you're serious...

 

[CX1]

I just assumed. You're being pedantic enough and picking out the most ridiculous things to answer.

What I have been answering is questions you have asked, but if you now call those questions ridiculous...

It just seemed to fit the hypocrisy of someone who thought his RKBA trumped the rights of the property owner until the table was turned and he had to defend his property rights against others wishing to pull rank on him.

So in other words this is as close as you are going to come to admitting you were wrong in assigning the incorrect position to me. Typical woman's apology.

And you have shown a lukewarm regard for property rights.

Sorry I'm not zealous enough for ya. Maybe next time. But at least we are in agreement that I do support property rights even if not to your acceptable level now. That is positive progress in this discussion.

It's been my experience that the ones who run their mouth about how good they are are usually the worst. I already don't want ya.

Just as well, my landlord is nicer to me then you would be anyway

Stop with the legally protected argument, will ya? I didn't ask why I can't. I asked why I shouldn't be allowed to. If you need me to rephrase the question, let's try this: why do we have laws infringing the property rights of property owners at all? Why do you think there should be laws prohibiting my discrimination based on anything or everything?

Ok, to the first question: We currently have these laws because the majority of our elected officials decided at the time that it does not support 'fairness and equality' if people can discriminate against you based on certain factors. Too many people were getting locked out of jobs, housing, restaurants and the like and this was leading to great masses of upset and potentially violent people on both sides of the issue. So the Federal Government basically stepped in and said enough.

As to why I personally think there should be laws that protect people from discrimination: From a non-religious based moral perspective it just seems wrong not to. A gut feeling maybe.
Its having empathy for those who might be on the opposite side of the coin so to speak.
How would I feel if I walked into the local Jiffy Mart and they said, "sorry, we don't allow white males to shop here." I would be quite angry. So I go down the road to the Express Mart and they say basically the same thing. So even though I have the money its not good enough for these businesses. This would seem crazy to me. Yet that is what many now protected classes once faced in this country and still face in a more limited fashion yet today. So basically since I would not want that to happen to me I would be a hypocrite if I was ok with it happening to someone else.
Now you may say that 'oh you could just shop somewhere eventually' and maybe in a large enough metro area you may be correct. But in a smaller city or town one could effectively be locked out of all businesses based on something completely outside of one's control such as skin color if you were part of a small minority of the population.
To me that just seems wrong if all men truly are created equal. If we are equal then sell me the dang nasty grill-roller hotdog if I have the money to pay for it no matter what color I am or what God I believe in or if I happen to be in a wheelchair.

And really, lets be honest here. The government owns your property. You are leasing it. They can kick you out on a whim (imminent domain). Stop paying your rent (property taxes) and see what happens. Your lease agreement (Federal and local law) says not to discriminate for certain reasons. Best not break your lease.

Though I am sure there might be some countries that allow people to discriminate all they want that you could move to. Though most of those don't really care for women or Americans so you might run into some problems.

 

[CX1]

If you're serious...

Well not really serious, more of just spit-balling an idea.
Think about it:
Those serious about personal protection would still be allowed to carry if they were willing to take a simple proficiency class. This is better then a complete ban yes?
Those who are anti-gun could live in the delusion of comfort by not being forced to see all those 'scary' guns. Out of sight is out of mind and all that.
And strong vocal 'give me OC or death' people would generate enough steam out of their ears to power a small town.
It is almost like a trifecta of win if you look at it that way.

But no I do not want forced training or body scans at the grocery store. I probably should have used some purple.

 

[sepe]

Well not really serious, more of just spit-balling an idea.
Think about it:
Those serious about personal protection would still be allowed to carry if they were willing to take a simple proficiency class. This is better then a complete ban yes?
Those who are anti-gun could live in the delusion of comfort by not being forced to see all those 'scary' guns. Out of sight is out of mind and all that.
And strong vocal 'give me OC or death' people would generate enough steam out of their ears to power a small town.
It is almost like a trifecta of win if you look at it that way.

But no I do not want forced training or body scans at the grocery store. I probably should have used some purple.

I don't care if purple is used or not because I can usually read it as intended. I just wasn't sure because I've seen quite a few people willing to give away freedoms with claims of "common sense" gun control, required training to own/be allowed to carry, and a few other things that should have surprised me since we're on a firearms forum.

 

[actaeon277]

UUUmmmm.
But, if a guy wants to walk into a place and shoot it up, how would a guy with a metal detector stop him?

 

[CX1]

UUUmmmm.
But, if a guy wants to walk into a place and shoot it up, how would a guy with a metal detector stop him?

Unless all entrances have sally ports with medal detectors and multiple armed guards how do propose stopping anyone who has a strong enough desire to enter a place and shoot it up?

If someone really wants in to cause havoc an armed guard alone will probably not stop them. They could be disabled before they even knew an attack was on them. So why not have an agent with a wand since that at least provides an illusion of safety for those that choose to believe it?

Then of course there is always the drive the vehicle through a wall to gain entry.

If one is not concerned on escape or survival then the options to stop them before the killing commences are rather limited.

Think of the carnage that could have happened yesterday with all the people lined up outside waiting to get their chicken sandwiches if someone really was wanting to make a statement. A mad gunman(or bomber I suppose) would have not even needed to enter a building.
How do you stop something like that?

 

[sepe]

Unless all entrances have sally ports with medal detectors and multiple armed guards how do propose stopping anyone who has a strong enough desire to enter a place and shoot it up?

If someone really wants in to cause havoc an armed guard alone will probably not stop them. They could be disabled before they even knew an attack was on them. So why not have an agent with a wand since that at least provides an illusion of safety for those that choose to believe it?

Then of course there is always the drive the vehicle through a wall to gain entry.

If one is not concerned on escape or survival then the options to stop them before the killing commences are rather limited.

Think of the carnage that could have happened yesterday with all the people lined up outside waiting to get their chicken sandwiches if someone really was wanting to make a statement. A mad gunman(or bomber I suppose) would have not even needed to enter a building.
How do you stop something like that?

But why have metal detectors or a guard if is just an illusion of safety? If those that own and carry firearms are fine with advancing a nanny state, why even carry for your protection? There will be someone posted at all entrances to keep us safe so we don't need to protect ourselves...right? If we can't stop them and we're fine with being molested by wands or going through metal detectors everywhere we go, we don't need these silly firearms...right?

 

[opus1776]

This is MY thinking as well, but, I've been wrong before.....

I know, I know.... I have heard it before.

======================================
"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss
You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.
Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...
Perfection: is not a goal---it's a demanded expectation.