Posted on 02/28/2011 6:00:53 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
Yes, they should. (351) 70%
No, they shouldn’t. (148) 30%
Sadly, liability for refusing to permit carry isn’t established in the law and in fact is barred by statute in many states...
You don’t lose your right to vote, or to free speech, depending on where you work. Why should you lose your right to self defense?
You don’t lose your right to vote, or to free speech, depending on where you work. Why should you lose your right to self defense?
No, it trumps your ability to do as you please on his property. See how that works? You get to exercise your free will and decide not to come onto his property, if you don't like the conditions. Excercise your rights elsewhere. Private property is private. Get that? Private.
Stop trying to tell other people what to do in their castle.
If people weren't held liable for the actions of nutjobs that they have no control over, then employers wouldn't be incentivized to shield themselves to begin with.
Far too many people think that the problem with government intrusion is that they aren't the one's doing the intruding. They don't recognize that the problem is the intrusion itself, not its intent.
Think about that. Doing what you want without being held accoutable for the actions of others.
Whoever told you that you get practice any right you want wherever you want needs to have their teaching certificate taken away. Your rights stop, where anothers start.
You have a right to free speech, but you have no right to speak in my house. You have a right to assemble, but not at your employers building. You have a right to practice voodoo, but not in my church.
Getting the idea?
Basic Rule of Life: If you have no right to be somewhere, then you have no right to be there armed without permission.
In other words: If I can tell you to get out, then I can make any other rule I want as a condition of your staying. Don’t like it? OK, be an adult and leave.
>>But what about YOUR property rights? Or YOUR self-defense rights? If your right to be armed is recognized as inalienable/inherent then they are necessarily not-repudiatable;
>
>Whoever told you that you get practice any right you want wherever you want needs to have their teaching certificate taken away. Your rights stop, where anothers start.
Wha? There’s NOTHING that violates *YOUR* rights by my defending my own life; is there?
Furthermore, I certainly *CAN* go onto your property [let’s assume invited] and spew off radically offensive crap —it wouldn’t be polite or proper, true— and that would not be violating ANY of your rights at all. (There is no right not to be offended; except if that is your goal you can achieve if by becoming dead, as the dead are immune from being offended.) Now, let’s assume that I’ve worn out my welcome, as should be if I was acting as such a lout, you *STILL* have the right to revoke your invitation, you *STILL* have the right to force me off your property WITH VIOLENCE if I do not accede to your “unvitation.”
But let’s assume that I’ve been a good guest instead; you contend that I have no right to defend myself on your property; what happens if, say, your big mean drunken brother in law comes over with his big mean drunken biker-gange and they decide to “have some fun” — according to you I would have no right to fight them off of me. That’s just fucked-up man. I *YOU* have disarmed me then certainly morally [and presumably legally] *YOU* are responsible for my safty and well-being. Are you getting the idea?
Not a bad point. I really am on the line on this one. Both sides have good arguments.
For example, if I am a guest in your house, are you allowed to punch me in the face for fun? It’s your house, your rules after all. Clearly no, so some rights trump property ownership.
But it is your house, so am I allowed to violate your wishes to disarm me?
Or do I just stay away from your house? What if I can’t because I need to feed my kids?
PS “Your” is a hypothetcial, not you personally.
>Basic Rule of Life: If you have no right to be somewhere, then you have no right to be there armed without permission.
Ah, what of my example of being called to jury duty?
In my state 1) the State Constitution forbids any law which abridges the right to keep and bear arms for Security and Defense; 2) there *IS NO LAW* which [directly] states that weapons are prohibited in the court, 3) the US Supreme court has *REPEATEDLY* ruled that members of Law Enforcement HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT A SINGLE PRIVATE CITIZEN; and 4) the *ONLY* thing that prohibits weapons in the courthouse is a section of the “Court Rules” which DOES state that people on trial will be disarmed [and places responsibility their safety to the Court/LEO] yet DOES NOT SAY **ANYTHING** about the supposedly free and not-indicted members of the Jury.
>In other words: If I can tell you to get out, then I can make any other rule I want as a condition of your staying. Don’t like it? OK, be an adult and leave.
ANCIENT RULE OF LIFE — If you have a guest then his safety and wellbeing *IS* your responsibility, failure in this area is akin to murder.
If you would disarm me, then I should be extraordinarily weary of you if you will not defend my safety at all.
>You don’t lose your right to vote, or to free speech, depending on where you work.
That depends on if you’re in the armed forces deployed overseas...
[/sarc][/cynic]
“In other words: If I can tell you to get out, then I can make any other rule I want as a condition of your stayin.”
Bullcr@p. How about this “rule”: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.
Extreme example? Yup. But it destroys your “point.”
>“In other words: If I can tell you to get out, then I can make any other rule I want as a condition of your stayin.”
>
>Bullcr@p. How about this “rule”: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.
>
>Extreme example? Yup. But it destroys your “point.”
No, it doesn’t. It only shows you to be an amoral and irresponsible person whom I would do well to utterly avoid in real life.
Fail. Attacking me instead of dealing with the point, to wit that you can make “any rule” if I am on your property.
How very liberal of you.
>Fail. Attacking me instead of dealing with the point, to wit that you can make “any rule” if I am on your property.
I never made the point that “any rule I make” is valid. In fact, it’s so utterly childish (”Heads I win, tails you lose”/”Nun-uh — I have INVISIBLE super shields that protect me from EVERYTHING and giant cannons that you can’t block or hide from!”) that it deserves just what you received, me saying [in a bit nicer way] “Fine, play your stupid game... but touch me and I’ll break your f——ing face.”
>How very liberal of you.
Ah, see there’s the personal attack.
My argument was that IF you are to actually embrace a “my house my supreme rule” AND declare that [to use your own example] your gay brother-in-law could “have his way” with me as one of those rules THEN it would behoove me to keep away from you as your very rules [wold] show you to be irresponsible (denying that you have ANY responsibility to a guest’s safety) and amoral (that you would unilaterally give that which is not yours, to wit: my sexuality, to someone else).
You may be confusing things with an inaccurate view of how if-then works in language.
“If it’s raining then you’ll get wet.” says nothing about when it *isn’t* raining; and your being wet doesn’t necessarily mean that it is raining as you could have, say, jumped in the ocean. {The only way your being wet says anything about if it’s raining is the case when the ONLY way to get wet is for it to rain; in math this is such an important relationship it’s called “if and only if.”}
“I never made the point that ‘any rule I make’ is valid.”
Yup, you didn’t. Got crossed up between two Freepers’ posts. My bad.
Public property is very different from private property.
And again, if you aren’t happy with the house rules, go elsewhere. That’s your right.
Public property is very different from private property.
And again, if you aren’t happy with the house rules, go elsewhere. That’s your right.
Property right over your person keeps someone from being able to make you a slave when you visit. But, they can set conditions concerning your stay that you might consider slavery. Then you must submit or leave.
The heart of the issue is “force”, neither you nor they can force the other party to submit, only to make a decision.
Concerning feeding children, it’s inconcequential. What if your boss needs you to stay to feed his children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.