Freedom includes the occasional feeling of discomfort about something. So?
I saw a little article zip by with the title of "Chipotle: Don't bring your guns into our stores". I really wanted to say something intelligent about it, and all I could think of was well, if you decide to call your organization "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America", you might get "action" of a kind you didn't necessarily expect.
In fact, the existence and probable actions of an organization with such a name is probably part of what led to people carrying guns in to lunch. So I guess the Moms succeeded?
hmmm.
In fact, the existence and probable actions of an organization with such a name is probably part of what led to people carrying guns in to lunch. So I guess the Moms succeeded?
hmmm.
–––––––––––––––––––
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms [...] only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
~ Cesare Beccaria, "Essay on Crimes and Punishments" (frequently misattributed to Thomas Jefferson)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Crimes_a...
I'd like to see a test case based on this rationale. Who's game?
If they will permit you on their property without a weapon, then they must permit you on their property with a weapon.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed*". Unlike the 1st Amendment, it does not specify who's doing the infringing.
7/11 can't keep you from carrying... if they would let you in w/o the weapon.
Yes, this sounds extreme. Blame the Founding Fathers. Amend the Constitution if you don't like what it says. Otherwise...
"Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is -- Obey!"
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Law of the Jungle"
The constitution, and by incorporation the amendments, are restrictions on the authority and scope of government, not you and I. Just as I am free to not publish your writings, and you likewise, we are free to decide the conditions upon which predicate access to, or use of, our respective properties.
Imagine a Luby's restaurant not allowing patrons to carry their pistols inside, and then subsequently a madman decides to shoot the joint up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcDHoqQL...
You're suggesting that your right to property supersedes my right to self-defense. I disagree.
And so does the Constitution.
I went on to explain:
"Innocent until proven guilty is how justice is universally upheld. Whenever non-objective law becomes commonplace, we have lost all perspective of justice."
They removed my name from their call list.
""Innocent until proven guilty is how justice is universally upheld. "
Justice is NEVER upheld by "Innocent until proven guilty".
It is only upheld by "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty".
A Very, vitally different way of putting it.
A true story is a group they partnered with to do seminars decided to use a different attorney. Probably looking for innocuous reasons, one of them said, "now that you have a baby, you're probably less focused on growth at the moment." or something like that. In less than a year they approached her and said they wanted to do the seminars again. She was magnanimous about it and said yes, and now the deal is working for both parties. The other group learned that a woman having a baby does not mean she neglects her business.
They can feel free to deprive an American of their 2nd Amendment right just because they personally don't like guns. Well I don't like them so every chance I get I'll run their company down as un-American and against civil rights.
People who carry guns legally can be discriminated against with no recourse?
You realize they aren't depriving you of your second amendment, they're depriving you of delicious burritos right?
Obviously there is a double standard here, basically the government is the judge on who is allowed to discriminate and who isn't, but what you just said is a very poor argument.
So, the average Joe is left defenseless, while the criminals are armed. I used to cover law enforcement on Sunday nights for the newspaper, which had me on the road between midnight and 2 a.m. between two towns, gathering logs. The parking lots were not well lit in either town! I could not carry my knife, as I would not get in. So, I had a very sharp hoof pick, which is not a weapon, but a tool for my horse. I was not going with no form of self defense. At the jail, all the inmates could holler out at me, but the deputies were all safely inside, and slow to get outside. Luckily, i only had that night duty once per week, but it gave me a feel for what other people working nights face on an ongoing basis. Walk in McD's at 10:45 p.m., and it does not feel all that safe either, teenagers manning the whole operation, no form of defense obvious. I ran into a druggie there one time, shouting out that he just found out he was God! I was told, better to carry scissors than a knife, as the cops might be more likely to charge you if you defend yourself with a knife. What a world this had become. In Wyo., our neighbor the Prosecutor, was never, and i mean never, without his gun on his hip, anywhere he went.