Replies

For when you argue that under some set of circumstances, the state may burden a particular right, you put the others in jeapordy of similar reasoning.

That's it in a nutshell, I think. Nice find.

I think the point that's being missed here by those who advocate the establishment of legislature which removes the property owner's right to determine what may the best course of action for his own self defense, is that the right to establish that course FOR EVERYONE has now been handed over to the legislature.

That legislature now has power it did not have before, and while in this instance it found one way, it can now reverse itself and go a number of different ways.

It can in fact, decide that NO BUSINESS may set policy allowing employees to bring weapons to work, after all, the ability to determine what the best policy is in reference to self defense at the workplace has now been taken from the hands of the people--business owners and employees alike--and transfered to the government.

If the government sets the aforementioned policy in place, it will argue that it is not a violation of the Second Amendment in the fact that the employee's ability to carry a weapon in their car to and from work has not been violated in the fact that they retain the ability to park off-premises.

That would have the effect of removing the ability of the whole people of Oklahoma to find a workplace with rules more in line with their own thoughts of self defense.

"Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan

Rockchucker, from TCF claimed:

"So in the end, I wind up not liking it when I see gun-rights advocates arguing in favor of infringing on other rights.
For when you argue that under some set of circumstances, the state may burden a particular right, you put the others in jeapordy of similar reasoning."

When just above that he correctly argued:

"Your right to defend yourself, i.e. your life, is a property right.
What is the most dear thing you possess? Your own self. Your own body. Your own life."

He has trapped himself in his own logic.

He agrees that mans most primary right is to defend himself. -- Indeed, - the State is charged in our Constitution to prevent infringements on that precise individual right.

Parking lot property rights do not trump our RKBA's, and it is specious to claim that defending an individuals gun rights would somehow -- "put the others in jeopardy of similar reasoning".

823 jones

Real property right never trumps the right to life and right to sovereignty over that life and it's will.
829 spunkets

Rockchucker claims:
"For when you argue that under some set of circumstances, the state may burden a particular right, you put the others in jeapordy of similar reasoning."

That's it in a nutshell, I think.
834 Nittany

Apt word, 'nutshell'. -- Rockchucker is not supporting individual rights by arguing that defending our RKBA's somehow burdens 'others'.