Close
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Trout Fear My Name Bitter Clinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Saudi Aurora
    Posts
    810

    Default

    But...shouldn't gun owners be a protected group? I also agree with you XC7, property rights should trump, I don't know on this one. I'm torn on which side to go with. The owner of century didn't kill anyone....directly. I am sure ALL of us can agree that gun free zones are stupid. But we DO NOT have to give them our money. But isn't it a fact that 99% of mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone? Where do property rights and the 2A meet?

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Milliken, CO
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bitter Clinger View Post
    But...shouldn't gun owners be a protected group? I also agree with you XC7, property rights should trump, I don't know on this one. I'm torn on which side to go with. The owner of century didn't kill anyone....directly. I am sure ALL of us can agree that gun free zones are stupid. But we DO NOT have to give them our money. But isn't it a fact that 99% of mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone? Where do property rights and the 2A meet?
    Absolutely, that's why I avoid them like the plague. Property rights and 2A rights meet at your decisions where you want to go, and what if anything you are willing to give up to go there, nowhere else. The only one in my mind that is legally responsible for these things outside of the actual perpetrator, is the government, that has willfully taken away rights to self defense via laws of restriction. Outside of that, it's completely up to your own decision.

    As to gun owners being a protected group, I honestly don't believe there should be any "protected groups" and expecting that protection outside of expecting that my rights are not infringed upon by the government, IMO, is asking for special rights and privileges over and above what our system was supposed to protect. That's not to say it hasn't happened and isn't happening, it absolutely is, it's to say that it's wrong.

    It's essentially the same assertion as the recent lawsuit that has now forced a bakery to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That's wrong on so many levels it's sickening to me. They have no right to demand services from a private enterprise. I have no problems with gays getting married (I honestly believe the govt should have no say whatsoever in who marries who as long as all involved are consenting adults), but I have a real problem with them using their "protected status" to force someone into providing a service to them that doesn't want to, no matter what the reason is.

    The phrase "Your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be free from you" comes to mind.

    There's a hell of a lot of things our society has come to think of as "rights" that aren't and that has unfortunately clouded the issue when it comes to people/the govt infringing those rights. Like the people that think they have a right to not be offended, or have their feelings hurt. In reality, it's pretty damned hard for an individual to infringe upon another individual's rights without committing some other major crime in the process.

    For example, how are you going to take away my rights of free speech without physically shutting me up? There's a difference between that and refusing to provide the service of a platform to express my free speech, such as this internet forum, which is a privately owned property, in which the owners have extended the privilege of a platform to it's members, in exchange for following the rules, and contributing to the community. In the case of 2A rights, it's pretty hard to take away that right as an individual without committing theft, not allowing you to exercise that right on my private property is completely different.
    Last edited by XC700116; 08-19-2014 at 11:39. Reason: added thoughts.

  3. #3
    Varmiteer Whistler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Athens, Texas
    Posts
    610

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XC700116 View Post
    Absolutely, that's why I avoid them like the plague. Property rights and 2A rights meet at your decisions where you want to go, and what if anything you are willing to give up to go there, nowhere else. The only one in my mind that is legally responsible for these things outside of the actual perpetrator, is the government, that has willfully taken away rights to self defense via laws of restriction. Outside of that, it's completely up to your own decision.

    As to gun owners being a protected group, I honestly don't believe there should be any "protected groups" and expecting that protection outside of expecting that my rights are not infringed upon by the government, IMO, is asking for special rights and privileges over and above what our system was supposed to protect. That's not to say it hasn't happened and isn't happening, it absolutely is, it's to say that it's wrong.

    It's essentially the same assertion as the recent lawsuit that has now forced a bakery to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That's wrong on so many levels it's sickening to me. They have no right to demand services from a private enterprise. I have no problems with gays getting married (I honestly believe the govt should have no say whatsoever in who marries who as long as all involved are consenting adults), but I have a real problem with them using their "protected status" to force someone into providing a service to them that doesn't want to, no matter what the reason is.

    The phrase "Your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be free from you" comes to mind.

    There's a hell of a lot of things our society has come to think of as "rights" that aren't and that has unfortunately clouded the issue when it comes to people/the govt infringing those rights. Like the people that think they have a right to not be offended, or have their feelings hurt. In reality, it's pretty damned hard for an individual to infringe upon another individual's rights without committing some other major crime in the process.

    For example, how are you going to take away my rights of free speech without physically shutting me up? There's a difference between that and refusing to provide the service of a platform to express my free speech, such as this internet forum, which is a privately owned property, in which the owners have extended the privilege of a platform to it's members, in exchange for following the rules, and contributing to the community. In the case of 2A rights, it's pretty hard to take away that right as an individual without committing theft, not allowing you to exercise that right on my private property is completely different.
    I like this post, quoted for no particular reason.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •