Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Joe Brower
"...owner versus the rights of the citizen guest."

The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.

Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.

Your rights end where mine begin.

72 posted on 02/10/2006 12:13:17 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
"Your rights end where mine begin."

However this is a case where they appear to be forced to overlap on occasion.

Overall, though, you are stating more directly what I myself said. This issue appears to be primarily centered around businesses. My take: If you own a store that says "no guns", then fine, I have a judgement call to make. If I'm carrying, do I go in unarmed? Or do I take my business elsewhere?

If I'm not carrying, then I still might not patronize your establishment out of principle. As I said, let the market decide.

If it's your own home, your rules most certainly apply. As does my own freedom to disarm and be welcome, or leave.

91 posted on 02/10/2006 12:36:00 PM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Everybody; Luis Gonzalez; Joe Brower
Luis argues today:

The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.

Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.

Your rights end where mine begin. -72-

Luis Gonzalez argued recently:

--- we govern according to what the Constitution says.

It says that Amendments apply to the States, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Luis, Article VI goes on to say that all officials "-- shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; --"

Do you disagree with this principle?
Have you ever served in any official capacity, been a member of the armed forces, or a naturalized citizen?
-- All of us have sworn that oath.. -- Would you refuse on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?

112 posted on 02/10/2006 2:01:34 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson