Tndeer Logo

Page 9 of 9 « First<56789
Topic Options
#3156130 - 02/08/13 11:30 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
...If its worded ONLY favoring permit holders I think it is flawed.


*only* permit holders are covered by the proposed law, and I agree - it is flawed.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156133 - 02/08/13 11:31 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 5808
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
...If its worded ONLY favoring permit holders I think it is flawed.


*only* permit holders are covered by the proposed law, and I agree - it is flawed.


I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156146 - 02/08/13 11:43 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
Sounds to me like -DMR- equates property rights with rights given by our Constitution.

I don't think that is the case at all. Constitutional RIGHTS take precedence over a persons or businesses "rights" -more accurately called preferences, desires or wants- all the time.


You are correct that certain rights pre-date the Constitution, in that they are considered innate, or inalienable. They simply exist - and the COTUS, and the Amendments merely serve to name some of them (with the 9th secure that there are many others not listed).
You are incorrect in assuming that property rights are not on par with religion, arms, or other innate or inalienable rights. Property rights are mentioned both in the 3rd and 4th Amendments, right along with other rights mentioned in the 2st and 2nd.

Further, it is common sense - and historically accurate - to understand that the second Amendment is not an "end", it is a means TO an end... The very reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is so that we ma defend and protect ALL OTHER RIGHTS, including life, liberty, property, religion, and many many more.

That has been my position all along.


Several here have tried to claim this is about "rights", but when the proposed law only applies to permit holders, and they support the law as applying only to permit holders - their position is made clear, they have no interest in securing rights for ALL men, just for them and their fellow permit holders. And to be honest, that is sad.

While I still disagree with the ability of a gun owner to FORCE a property owner to give up their property rights, I can at least understand the position if it were to apply to ALL gun owners.

But to apply it to only permit holders makes it quite clear this isn't about rights, it is about a privileged class (carry permit holders) just wanting to get their way, regardless of whose rights they take, or the fact that every other law abiding gun owners gets left out in the cold on this.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156148 - 02/08/13 11:45 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.


By protected, do you understand that what you want is to use the state to force property owners to let you do what you want on THEIR property? This needs to be perfectly clear - you are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S RIGHTS.

So many people want to couch this in other terms to feel better about it, but it needs to be called what it is.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156160 - 02/08/13 11:54 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
ferg
Spider
16 Point


Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 14836
Loc: At the TNDeer shirt factory %^...

Offline
It's an eminent domain issue - it's for the good of the public that guns be permitted on the property of others

ferg....

(headed for the hills now) \:D
_________________________
'It's time to pee on the fire and call in the dogs boys!'

USCG(Ret)
Semper Par !




Top
#3156171 - 02/08/13 12:07 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 5808
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.


By protected, do you understand that what you want is to use the state to force property owners to let you do what you want on THEIR property? This needs to be perfectly clear - you are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S RIGHTS.

So many people want to couch this in other terms to feel better about it, but it needs to be called what it is.


Its not about me, its about allowing citizens (permit holders or not if I was drafting the bill) as the Constitution allows, to legally possess a weapon without fear of retribution from their employer.

I don't think that takes away another mans or business owners "rights" -more accurately called preferences or desires- at all. Does it limit what he can and can't do on his property or the control he has over his property?...sure. But even though I would like to, I can't hunt 365 days a year on my property, I can't establish my own dump, can't Dam up a waterway through my property, can't discharge a firearm if I'm in the city limits etc...property restrictions are quite common.

I think you are confusing RIGHTS with desires or preferences. A man might prefer that no Blacks or African Americans or Caucasians visit his business, that does not give him the right to tell them to leave.

There is no constitutionally given right to complete control of your property, there never has been and shouldn't be.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156182 - 02/08/13 12:15 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 5808
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
I also get the other side of the argument, I don't like the government or anyone else telling me what I can and can't do either...but some things are necessary. I feel strongly that the 2nd Amendment supersedes the wants or desires of a property owner.
It is that simple.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
Page 9 of 9 « First<56789


Moderator:  RUGER, Unicam, gtk, Tennessee Todd, Lakeland Charlie, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, Outdoor Lady, TurkeyBurd, MAN, Bobby G, Kimber45, Crappie Luck, Kirk 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4104362
RUGER
85534
Deer Assassin
64229
BSK
59490
Crappie Luck
51368
spitndrum
Newest Members
PEhunter, Amy pesterfield, Blood seeker, fghijk604245, top_of_the_foodchain
13289 Registered Users
Who's Online
8 registered (Setterman, TnBob, Paul Burns, Bowdacious, TIGGREM2, pledbetter) and 85 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13289 Members
42 Forums
85433 Topics
1032293 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.249 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression enabled.