Open Carry: Why????

[karlac]

The difference is simple: If your goal is conquest or visit, the concept changes. There is no doubt we robbed the original owners, however, we weren't exercising rights, we weren't visiting. Our goal was conquest, and we won.
This discussion is entirely different.

Not it when it speaks to the application of the concepts under discussion. And application is what is indeed under discussion, no doubt about that.

 

[Krw17]

But I can "steal" it. Legally. I can have it towed if you're trespassing.

We are discussing two separate issues though. In your other example you mentioned murder, murder is against the law. I have no right to it unless I'm defending which makes it not murder.

In the truck example, as well as the employer example, I have rights because I am on my property, you are there by invitation not right.

I have no right to carry in your home. I have a right to a choice if presented with the options of entering unarmed or being barred from entry while carrying.

Yeah but you can't take possession of it. I understand your argument though and agree with it mostly. I just know there are still protections for me. Just still pondering about how much protections.

I have this conflicted feelings about how Costco or Sams stops you at the door to check you. On one hand this is private property and you have agreed to this "intrusion". On the other hand you have purchased something from them and now own it but they want to detain you and essentially search you. This is a totally new issue though and I know it has debated to death.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karlac]

Assuming you mean Native Americans. Yes, we completely trampled their rights.

As far as property rights go, I don't believe they had a concept of land ownership until we showed up and started drawing out boundary lines. Not an expert on the subject by any means.

Rights being self serving? Well of course. Having a foundation of basic rights does serve me, as well as everyone else. It may not always work in my favor, but in the big picture it does. As it does for everyone.

What we did to the native Americans was wrong on just about every level, but I didn't do it to them any more than I owned a slave. I feel no guilt.

As I said, "to the victor go the spoils". I make no apology for that, simply pointing out how the application of inalienable rights has always had a self serving component.

 

[Younggun]

Not really.

 

[winchster]

Not it when it speaks to the application of the concepts under discussion. And application is what is indeed under discussion, no doubt about that.

Here's the difference.
I'm not talking about taking over a business or your home. I'm talking about visiting it.

If we are discussing raping and pillaging a place of business just so we can carry there, I'm out.
If we are discussing visiting a place of business and wether or not my rights are violated by their conditions, I'm in.

 

[karlac]

Not really.

A reply easily uttered, but difficult to defend?

 

[itchin]

 

[Younggun]

It is easily defended.

You are trying to compare two completely different things. Apples need to be peeled because orange peels are tough to digest.


You didn't really make a point at all.

 

[karlac]

Here's the difference.
I'm not talking about taking over a business or your home. I'm talking about visiting it.

If we are discussing raping and pillaging a place of business just so we can carry there, I'm out.
If we are discussing visiting a place of business and wether or not my rights are violated by their conditions, I'm in.

No argument there, but your analogy above is only addressing what I stated peripherally. What I am speaking of is reality of what are considered inalienable rights and how they are applied.

IOW, our cherished beliefs are, sadly, not always as sacrosanct as we prefer to believe.

 

[karlac]

You didn't really make a point at all.

An inability to grasp is no argument.

 

[NavyVet1959]

You guys seem to be all for the constitution until it runs afoul of property rights. The constitution has to remain the supreme law of the land.

If you really look at what the Founding Fathers said in the 1st Amendment, they were putting limits on what the *federal* government can do not what the state governments can do. It wasn't until we were shafted with the 14th Amendment that the federal government overstepped their bounds intended by the Founding Fathers and extended their control down to the state level. The only reason the 14th Amendment was ratified was because the southern states were forced under duress to ratify it.

Why the Founding Fathers explicitly limited the federal government in the 1st Amendment and not in the subsequent ones, I'm a bit curious though.

I'm all for private property rights. If I have a property for rent and I choose to refuse to rent to certain types of people, it's my right. But, as long as I don't own more than 3 houses and don't use a real estate broker for the rentals, the current law says that I'm still free to discriminate against anyone that I want.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If a business that is open to the public wants to discriminate against any class of person, they should be allowed, AS LONG AS they post their discrimination criteria so that it is plain to see. That way, everyone can decide whether they want to do business with a store that discriminates against people that fit in those categories.

 

[winchster]

No argument there, but your analogy above is only addressing what I stated peripherally. What I am speaking of is reality of what are considered inalienable rights and how they are applied.

IOW, our cherished beliefs are, sadly, not always as sacrosanct as we prefer to believe.

I hear you. They had the inalienable right to defend their way and place of life. We had no inalienable right to take either.

What you're not keeping in mind is, the people that trampled the natives rights didn't view them as people. They viewed them as vermin, much like our current view on feral hogs. So in their mind there were no rights being trampled, as vermin have none.

 

[Younggun]

An inability to grasp is no argument.

Lack of argument is not equal to "inability to grasp".

You really didn't pose an argument, you made a statement that "if/then" but you didn't compare similar things or really even closely related things.

You say "we" in your posts but you use an example that happened long before any of us were alive. That's like saying we are all racists because slavery happened.

 

[karlac]

I hear you. They had the inalienable right to defend their way and place of life. We had no inalienable right to take either.

What you're not keeping in mind is, the people that trampled the natives rights didn't view them as people. They viewed them as vermin, much like our current view on feral hogs. So in their mind there were no rights being trampled, as vermin have none.

Which nicely proves my original point that these cherished "inalienable rights", are in practice neither as inalienable, nor as sacrosanct, as we would prefer to believe.

Thanks.

 

[karlac]

Lack of argument is not equal to "inability to grasp".

You really didn't pose an argument, you made a statement that "if/then" but you didn't compare similar things or really even closely related things.

You say "we" in your posts but you use an example that happened long before any of us were alive. That's like saying we are all racists because slavery happened.

Take your time, you're usually a more worthy debater than that.

Not to mention the pitfalls of not taking history into context.

 

[Younggun]

Lot on my mind today, lol.

 

[karlac]

Lot on my mind today, lol.

Sorry to hear. Hope all is OK.

Obviously, I don't have enough on mine.

Always enjoyed your unique take on things. Never personal.

 

[Younggun]

Nothing major or life threatening. Just trying to make some things happen today and scheduling is kinda shaky.

Getting impatient and nothing I can do about it. I'll come back here later once my head is clear. Until then I'll reside in the PW thread making potato pancakes.

 

[Rhino]

If you really look at what the Founding Fathers said in the 1st Amendment, they were putting limits on what the *federal* government can do not what the state governments can do. It wasn't until we were shafted with the 14th Amendment that the federal government overstepped their bounds intended by the Founding Fathers and extended their control down to the state level. The only reason the 14th Amendment was ratified was because the southern states were forced under duress to ratify it.

Why the Founding Fathers explicitly limited the federal government in the 1st Amendment and not in the subsequent ones, I'm a bit curious though.

I'm all for private property rights. If I have a property for rent and I choose to refuse to rent to certain types of people, it's my right. But, as long as I don't own more than 3 houses and don't use a real estate broker for the rentals, the current law says that I'm still free to discriminate against anyone that I want.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If a business that is open to the public wants to discriminate against any class of person, they should be allowed, AS LONG AS they post their discrimination criteria so that it is plain to see. That way, everyone can decide whether they want to do business with a store that discriminates against people that fit in those categories.

Don't forget the 10th amendment, either.

 

[winchster]

Which nicely proves my original point that these cherished "inalienable rights", are in practice neither as inalienable, nor as sacrosanct, as we would prefer to believe.

Thanks.

Not really, the rights of man have always been both sacrosanct and inalienable. What has changed, is the definition of man.