Right to bear arms is not absolute

Denver Post ^ | 2-16-03 | State Sen. Ken Gordon

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is no such thing as an "unregulated" business anywhere, where government regulations do not apply, the business itself can set some.

Just expecting employees to show up for work as scheduled is a regulation.

[Poohbah]

In a truly constitutonal RKBA society, the entire nation would uphold the right as does, [or did] the State of New Hampshire. Anyone could carry concealed at any time anywhere.

Wrong. I could demand, as a condition of entering onto my property, that anyone (or everyone) not carry their weapons.

Thus, there would be no real basis or reason to search anyone coming onto your property for weapons, or for any other reason.

My private property rights are more than sufficient.

This would also apply to relativily 'unregulated' airlines, as sneakyypete noted ours once were.

No, it would not.

Amazing how some folks demand absolute fealty to THEIR rights, and demand the privelege of urinating on everyone else's.

[anono_bod]

I will explain it this way: I make the decision as to who carries and who doesn't carry on my property.
You would be in the latter category, since you seem to not understand other people's property rights.
poohbah

______________________________________


In a truly constitutonal RKBA society, the entire nation would uphold the right as does, [or did] the State of New Hampshire. Anyone could carry concealed at any time anywhere.
Thus, there would be no real basis or reason to search anyone coming onto your property for weapons, or for any other reason.
This would also apply to relativily 'unregulated' airlines, as sneakyypete noted ours once were.
219 posted by anono_bod

____________________________________


The only real basis that I would need in order to justify my searching anyone wanting to enter my property for a weapon, is just that I wanted to.
It's my property, and if I so desire to search anyone before entering, I'll do so.
If you object to being searched, then you don't have to come on to my property.
220
_____________________________________


Of course you could search everyone, thats not the point.
- You wouldn't do so, if you wanted customers. Free trade would weed out paranoid shopkeepers. Or airlines who refused passengers the right of self defense.

[anono_bod]

Flat amazing how some folks jump to conclusions that others "demand absolute fealty to THEIR rights, and demand the privelege of urinating on everyone else's."

[Poohbah]

Flat amazing how some folks jump to conclusions that others "demand absolute fealty to THEIR rights, and demand the privelege of urinating on everyone else's."

That's what you're doing; you're demanding that your right to carry supercede everyone else's property rights.

[Poohbah]

You wouldn't do so, if you wanted customers. Free trade would weed out paranoid shopkeepers. Or airlines who refused passengers the right of self defense.

Firearms favor the few and organized over the many and disorganized. And the bad guys will be carrying, as well. Do not assume that they are rational and easily deterred by others carrying weapons; they will merely assume that they might have to shoot a few would-be heroes early on, and be watchful after that.

And Ted Nugent's quote about the BATF is instructive: "At my hunting camp, you may choose to partake of firearms; you may choose to partake of alcohol and tobacco. However, if you are partaking of alcohol and tobacco, you are not allowed to partake of firearms at the same time. That's why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is such a bad idea."

Bars that didn't outlaw firearms would lose a higher percentage of customers per year than those that did.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I've often thought it would be a fun idea to franchise out pistol rental carts at bars and liquor stores in crappy parts of town, facilitating 24 hour rentals.

I can hear it now: "I want a fifth of Jim Beam, and that nice lookin' Sig in the case."

[Poohbah]

It would definitely chlorinate the gene pool.

[anono_bod]

Flat amazing how some folks jump to conclusions that others "demand absolute fealty to THEIR rights, and demand the privelege of urinating on everyone else's."

That's what you're doing; you're demanding that your right to carry supercede everyone else's property rights.

Simply not true. You misread my post.

=================================

You wouldn't do so, if you wanted customers. Free trade would weed out paranoid shopkeepers. Or airlines who refused passengers the right of self defense.

Firearms favor the few and organized over the many and disorganized. And the bad guys will be carrying, as well. Do not assume that they are rational and easily deterred by others carrying weapons; they will merely assume that they might have to shoot a few would-be heroes early on, and be watchful after that.

Are those truisms supposed to answer my observations on self defense & free trade? If so, OK, fine.

And Ted Nugent's quote about the BATF is instructive: "At my hunting camp, you may choose to partake of firearms; you may choose to partake of alcohol and tobacco. However, if you are partaking of alcohol and tobacco, you are not allowed to partake of firearms at the same time. That's why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is such a bad idea." Bars that didn't outlaw firearms would lose a higher percentage of customers per year than those that did.

The 'wild west' version of saloons is historically incorrect. Most men didn't 'carry' in the bad old days, because they didn't need to.
It was assumed that enough did, which encouraged everyone else to watch their big mouths.

[Poohbah]

The 'wild west' version of saloons is historically incorrect. Most men didn't 'carry' in the bad old days, because they didn't need to.

And saloon owners made a point to request that their customers check their guns at the door. The saloon owners also invested in armed guards to both keep the riff-raff out and to ensure that things remained relatively peaceable inside.

It was assumed that enough did, which encouraged everyone else to watch their big mouths.

Alcohol tends to clobber judgement first--and decreased judgement tends to enlarge mouths beyond the point where one could easily watch it...

[anono_bod]

The 'wild west' version of saloons is historically incorrect. Most men didn't 'carry' in the bad old days, because they didn't need to.

And saloon owners made a point to request that their customers check their guns at the door. The saloon owners also invested in armed guards to both keep the riff-raff out and to ensure that things remained relatively peaceable inside.

Maybe they did in the 'real' wild west cowtowns & mining camps, but I doubt there were gunchecks & obvious armed guards in the finer establishments in say 90% of the rest of the country.
But by all means, believe that gun control was a big part of life in the 19th century, if it makes you happy.

==============================

It was assumed that enough did, [carry] which encouraged everyone else to watch their big mouths.

Alcohol tends to clobber judgement first--and decreased judgement tends to enlarge mouths beyond the point where one could easily watch it...

My, how astute. Thanks for your wisdom.

[Pat Bateman]

My thanks to both of you, and everyone else on this thread. There were three of these opinions in the Denver Whatever, I posted them all. Should have linked them all together, I guess.

[Travis McGee]

It's been a greata thread, I'll check the letters to the editor later.

[yarddog]

I used to live in Dodge City, Kansas. There was a rule in effect when Wyatt Earp was town deputy marshall that no guns were allowed North of the deadline, or Arkansa River.

The reason was the same as gun control now. It was so the people in power, ie: the saloon owners, whore houses etc. would be allowed to shear the sheep with no fear of the sheep objecting in a meaningful manner. It didn't work as far as keeping Dodge City safe as any person knows.

[Badray]

Thank you for posting them. They were all good threads

[BenR2]

BenR2 is a responsible member of society and has never proven himself to be otherwise.

/ / / / /
Nice of you to say so, but, perhaps, the likes of Hillary Clinton may take a different position.

That is the weakness of your position. It is dependent on human mercy, making it a privilege, not a right -- in my humble opinion.

[Cultural Jihad]

We all have to make judgments in life. Whether someone is mentally incompetent and thereby is not allowed to sign contracts or own weapons is a judgment call, too. The "Hillary might make a judgment and therefore no one else should be allowed to" argument just doesn't fly.