Texas SOT

Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    Yeah that was the question not how to change the current laws about 30.06 and 30.07. Hijack threads and tilt at windmills!

    You must be trying really hard not to see the connection here. A connection that everyone else posting can see no matter which side of the argument they are on.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
    Target Sports
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    What are the basic rights?

    Y'all haven't even identified the framework of the basic argument here.

    So let's set the framework.

    I can tell you that the exercise by none person of his rights often infringes upon the exercise of the other persons rights.

    But let's define what constitutes the basic bundle of rights that each of us has.

    Hint. Property rights ain't in it directly.

    Life.
    Liberty
    Pursuit of happiness.

    Then we get into the bill of rights

    Only then can we start discussing what rights we have and when each of those rights infringes or becomes of more importance than another right.

    We also have to identify to whom the rights flow and when.

    From consevapedia.

    To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation against tyranny). (Second Amendment)
    To own and carry at home and in public weapons (firearms and knives, etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free against tyranny from enemies both foreign and domestic. (Second Amendment)
    To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
    To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
    To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
    To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. (First Amendment)
    To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. (First Amendment)
    To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. (First Amendment)
    To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy). (Fourth Amendment)
    To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
    To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
    To be tried by a jury of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
    To be tried by a jury of one's peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
    To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
    To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
    To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

    I've put a couple of sections in bold. It appears pretty direct to me.


    I don't believe exercising one right infringes on the rights of another. I really can't think of anything I do that falls in to that category or anything anybody else does. When the exercising of a right violates the right of another, the one exercising their right often doesn't have the right to do what they're doing.

    In this situation, it would be carrying on the property of another. But as we have no right to be on anothers property, we have no right to do anything on that persons property without the property owners consent.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    The fascinating thing is that property rights are not specifically mentioned in the 3rd. It simply say that you can't be forced to quarter troops in your house.

    Now here is the clincher for all the property right absolutists.


    Unless in time of war, they pass a law saying they can take your stuff.


    www.TexasGunTrust.com

    Passing laws has nothing to do with rights. Laws are passed that violate rights and that is not a good thing. Wars have been fought over it.

    I don't think government actions are a very good gauge to use. Historically, governments don't give a damn about our rights.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Recoil45

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 13, 2014
    1,308
    31
    Several others want to follow suit with the states that force a business to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to. I am against that philosophy across the board, be it 30.06 or cake for a gay wedding.

    That's not a philosophy, it's the current law. Courts have determined that a persons right not to be discriminated against is a stronger right than your property rights when you choose to open your property to the public.

    Your views are a philosophy which you are entitled to but they don't fit within our current laws.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
    Amendment I
    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.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


    www.TexasGunTrust.com

    Amendment 9 is very important as it applies here to those who argue property rights aren't listed in the bill of rights.

    Amendment 13 is another big one as it relates to the ability to force a business owner to offer services to someone whom he doesn't wish to serve. Be it a gay couple getting married, or someone who is armed.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    That's not a philosophy, it's the current law. Courts have determined that a persons right not to be discriminated against is a stronger right than your property rights when you choose to open your property to the public.

    Your views are a philosophy which you are entitled to but they don't fit within our current laws.

    The problem is it's based on a faulty premise. We discriminate daily for different reasons.

    If we were talking about discrimination by the government I would agree 100%. Your government should not discriminate against you. But private citizens have every right to discriminate. Some do so in very immoral ways, but morality and rights are not the same.




    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    I think there are some misconceptions about property rights.

    The reality is that we have eminent domain laws that allow one private company to get the government to use its eminent domain power to take a citizens property for a private project.

    That is the use of ones property rights to negatively affect another's property rights.


    www.TexasGunTrust.com

    The one private company has no "right" to any other persons property. They simply infringe on anothers property rights using government force. Might does not make a right. It's simply a case where people have chosen to accept an infringement that they think will never effect them negatively, and when it eventually does they finally figure out how bad they screwed up.

    They were ok with an infringement on someone else as long as they felt the benefit. When they felt the infringement there was no one to fight for them. It does remind me a lot of this discussion though. Many here seem happy to infringe because they won't feel the sting, but just like imminent domain, they will cry foul when it is their right being trampled upon.

    I'd prefer to side with rights and avoid those nasty occurrences of hypocrisy.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    Does not prevent someone from defending themselves just how they do so and they are not forced to be there so not a real moral or legal issue.
    And the constitutional right has never been held legally or by majority belief to impart even kind of sort of the right you claim.
    There really is no clash of rights here. That's all made up BS.
    Signage is a way of clearly, and more specifically a way of stating a businesses intent, clear enough that verbal notice is not necessary. Who says it's not necessary? The State. And it's not like it's a unique situation. There are other case in which verbal notice is not necessary. I guess people don't remember than there were some who would advocate arrest if a CHL carried past a gun buster sign. Because then it was just a Criminal Trespass charge and some argued a gun buster notice was sufficient. 30.06 protected gun owners as much as businesses who wanted to exclude guns.

    I actually agree with post.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    And if a cow jumped over a moon would I then think the moon was green cheese? I actually said why I would fall back on the law. You come up with a maybe situation and re ask the question while ignoring the answers I already gave.

    And no that isn't what the argument is. You can be 10000% right, which funny enough at least in this case I agree with though I think your attempt to make it universal is , well, simple and ignores way to much to be in any way meaningful. You could get everyone reading to agree with out and it would have absolutely no effect on the validity and legality of posting a business. And, at least at this stage, absolutely no political effect or any practical implications about the proliferation of signs. So what point, what effect, are you going to have or show besides patting yourself on the back over how deeply you can navel gaze?

    I'm guessing you didn't answer the question because you didn't like the answer you would have to give. It was a simple question and one that is not very far fetched considering the current state of SCOTUS. You are basing your argument on "the government says". If that is a valid basis then you would be ok with the government saying other things as well, and would take what they say as fact. If that is not universal, then your use of the government in this discussion is dishonest as they are not a trustworthy source.

    The effect? If someone reads this while trying to determine their views on rights and some of it soaks in I have done good. Ideas are powerful things.

    You can still answer my question though.


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    CrazedJava

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 5, 2013
    1,561
    21
    DFW
    This whole circular argument continues to revolve around the notion that one person has a greater reason to exercise their right than another.

    Some of the examples around property owner's restrictions are infringements, same as being forced to get a license to carry a gun. Not everyone sees these as infringements, but nearly every right we have has some law restricting how we can utilize them.

    While our political class may place themselves above the law, we cannot start acting as though laws should be selectively enforced at our own whim or that we the citizenry get to decide for ourselves which rights we want and which rights other people should have. Period.

    If you don't like the way 30.06 and 30.07 is implemented, feel free to work with your elected officials to get them changed. However, getting them changed in a manner that disrespects the rights of another makes us no better or different than those that have tried to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If we want to continue winning battles and keeping the public on our side we cannot become the "gun bullies" that some people paint us as.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    You must be trying really hard not to see the connection here. A connection that everyone else posting can see no matter which side of the argument they are on.


    Sent from my HAL 9000


    It's a connection because you and others want to navel gaze on expound on a pet topic. And I've actually said why but you never address my arguments. Just "but everyone else" as if that shows or proves something. It certainly doesn't address the argument or it's validity.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    I'm guessing you didn't answer the question because you didn't like the answer you would have to give. It was a simple question and one that is not very far fetched considering the current state of SCOTUS. You are basing your argument on "the government says". If that is a valid basis then you would be ok with the government saying other things as well, and would take what they say as fact. If that is not universal, then your use of the government in this discussion is dishonest as they are not a trustworthy source.

    The effect? If someone reads this while trying to determine their views on rights and some of it soaks in I have done good. Ideas are powerful things.

    You can still answer my question though.


    Sent from my HAL 9000

    You ignore what I write. Why? You pick and choose through my comments and ignore what I say to try and reframe a question and you ask why I won't answer. Your arguments are based in large part on logical fallacies. What I might think of some made up possibility? That's your big argument that I must respond to or it allows you to assign any meaning you want to my failure to comply? Why would I respond to such things?
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    It's a connection because you and others want to navel gaze on expound on a pet topic. And I've actually said why but you never address my arguments. Just "but everyone else" as if that shows or proves something. It certainly doesn't address the argument or it's validity.

    So you don't believe carrying on private property has anything to do with property rights?

    I'm curious, if you find all of this so pointless, why do you keep coming back to "navel gaze" with us. (Not even sure what that is supposed to mean, but you seem to believe it adds something to a post so I figured I should use it too)

    Trying to change our minds so you can pat yourself on the back?


    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    You ignore what I write. Why? You pick and choose through my comments and ignore what I say to try and reframe a question and you ask why I won't answer. Your arguments are based in large part on logical fallacies. What I might think of some made up possibility? That's your big argument that I must respond to or it allows you to assign any meaning you want to my failure to comply? Why would I respond to such things?

    I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I'm attempting to verify that you are being honest in your posts. Something you are refusing to do.

    There is no logical fallacy, only your refusal to be honest about how you are forming your opinion. Probably because you aren't willing to be honest with yourself about how that opinion is formed.

    Your sniping blindly and can't see your target, just assuming you're hitting the mark.





    Sent from my HAL 9000
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    So you don't believe carrying on private property has anything to do with property rights?

    I'm curious, if you find all of this so pointless, why do you keep coming back to "navel gaze" with us. (Not even sure what that is supposed to mean, but you seem to believe it adds something to a post so I figured I should use it too)

    Trying to change our minds so you can pat yourself on the back?


    Sent from my HAL 9000

    You know I'm not sure why I keep coming back my self. Navel gazing is even in the dictionary. It means among other things useless contemplation.

    As far as the connection you want to espouse some libertarian ideal that wont have any effect on real life. None. WE both know that and while you pose this question and make that statement you keep ignoring the fact that it has no practical implications beside letting you climb on your soapbox.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I'm attempting to verify that you are being honest in your posts. Something you are refusing to do.

    There is no logical fallacy, only your refusal to be honest about how you are forming your opinion. Probably because you aren't willing to be honest with yourself about how that opinion is formed.

    Your sniping blindly and can't see your target, just assuming you're hitting the mark.





    Sent from my HAL 9000


    Dude you want to bet. I'll go back and deconstruct your BS statements and make a list of at least 5 min (logical fallacies I mean) in this thread. What are you willing to put up? Refusal to be honest? That's actually insulting. You do this running, shifting goalpost, let me make up this scenario that can never happen, what would you then think, BS questions and because I won't go down some rabbit hole I'm being dishonest? For the most part my opinion was that your posts were mainly pointless Philosophy and isn't germane to the conversation. What's not honest about that? What the heck do you need to know about how I formed that opinion that I haven't already said? You want to get into a big debate over how germane it is while refusing to make any comment about the fact that even if you are 10000% correct it won't effect any dang thing at all. Do you even still know what the heck you are tying to argue about? I'm still where I was you just can't see because your wallowing around flailing about. Get a grip and make a real argument.
     

    winchster

    Right Wing Extremist
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Nov 7, 2010
    4,295
    31
    Justin, TX
    That's not a philosophy, it's the current law. Courts have determined that a persons right not to be discriminated against is a stronger right than your property rights when you choose to open your property to the public.

    Your views are a philosophy which you are entitled to but they don't fit within our current laws.
    Only as it pertains to "protected classes" of people with regard to the fed. Think civil rights act. The philosophy, as I called it, has also been enacted into law, in several states, to add homosexuality to the list. I disagree with the premise of those laws on principle and am in fact arguing in this thread against making us, LTC holders, yet another protected class. Make more sense?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,551
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    Unless in time of war, they pass a law saying they can take your stuff.
    The reality is that we have eminent domain laws that allow one private company to get the government to use its eminent domain power to take a citizens property for a private project.
    Correct. Property rights are not legally respected and often infringed on. Let's not make it worse.


    So what point, what effect, are you going to have or show besides patting yourself on the back over how deeply you can navel gaze?
    Your attempt at belittling debate and reasoning is very telling. If it weren't for the "navel gazing" of the founding Fathers and their contemporary philosophers, we wouldn't have the Constitution and BOR.
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    From more innocent, polite and respectfully voluntary cooperation days?
    IMG_0050.jpg
    "Blessed are the peacemakers" refers to the humans, not the Colt wheel guns, I'm thinking!
     
    Top Bottom