Private Property Rights to be Eviscerated by "Compromise"

Submitted by WhitesCreek on December 5, 2012 - 7:01am.

So now we know what compromise looks like. Guns everywhere except college campuses. I see dead people...

Link...


"Guns everywhere except college campuses.

I see dead people...” such an irresponsible comment from an educated person. While it may be cliché, it is true - guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The fact that a permitted citizen is allowed to conceal a firearm in his/her vehicle in no way indicates that violent crime will increase. The success of the handgun carry law already disproved the liberal hypothesis that lawlessness would prevail when responsible citizens were permitted to carry a firearm on their person in public. I haven’t heard of one instance of a permitted citizen walking into an area and indiscriminately shooting people. However, I have heard of permitted citizens using their firearms to protect themselves and/or prevent harm to others.

Let’s focus on disarming and deterring the criminals, not the law abiding people.

WhitesCreek's picture
I stand by the prediction.

I stand by the prediction. The bill doesn't not limit weapons to permits. And to educate you better, there have been a number of CC shooters, the Seattle Cafe Racer shooter, for example. You can no longer use that particular argument by false equivalency. This also steps around the evisceration of private property rights and the right to set the terms of someone coming onto my property.

I was personally involved with an employee flying into a rage after an evaluation, going to the parking lot and looking for the weapon he thought he had in his trunk. Luckily he had left it at home. After he calmed down he was crying over what he might have done. This whole proposal is a conflict of rights. We'll see how it plays out and what Republicans will have to offer business people in order to stay in their good graces.

Mike, I let your comment remain for the purposes of discussion but I will not tolerate further name calling.

Name calling?

Where?

KnightLord's picture
Re: I stand by the prediction.

But, WC, aren't you "name-calling" when you imply that I, or Mike, or any other presumably law-abiding citizen is simply a criminal that has yet to commit a crime and therefore should be punished/restricted prior to the act? It sure feels that way to me, and I'm sure to any other that is offended by such an attitude.

You speak of an employee that, in a rage, went to their vehicle to obtain a weapon {was it legal for them to have that weapon in their vehicle?}, yet somehow neglected to pick up the tire tool that would have served the purpose just as well. Would you also strip us of pocket knives, nail files, and nail clippers?

Sadly, the Constitution has been eviscerated by those who would act as though they are superior to the rest of us and uniquely qualified to dictate to us which rights we may, or may not have, when it was instituted to protect us from people such as this and the intrusion of government.

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

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." - Plato

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting

KnightLord's picture
An After-thought

Compare crime statistics in areas where "Gun Control" is most stringently enforced, and those areas where the people's right to keep and bear arms is left predominantly alone. I would wager that there's a reason that those statistics are not widely publicized by the "liberal" news media.

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

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." - Plato

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting

These predictions have all been made before...

"Like the wild west..." "Streets will run red with blood..." "Every time there is a car crash there will be a gunfight..." and so on, ad nauseum.

The facts are that these dire predictions have never come true. History shows us there's no reason to believe they'll come true now.

Very similar to the predictions of rampant death in the streets from drunk driving when Harriman and other places have legalized liquor... it hasn't happened.

I suspect similar horrific predictions will not come true in Colorado now that cannabis has been legalized.

RB

WhitesCreek's picture
All of these talking points

All of these talking points are beside the point. The question is should the state legislature force me to allow employees to bring weapons onto my private property? I see that as a plain and simple "NO". You don't have to work for me if you disagree.

KnightLord's picture
Re: All of these talking points

When law prefers one person's rights over another, or one group's rights over another group's, this is usually referred to as someone being "more equal" than another. As you diminish the rights of another, your own are equally diminished though you may not see it for a while. This is the central issue at hand, and the one that the American people have been losing for years.

If I drive onto your property you can ask me to leave for any reason, whether reasonable or not, and if I don't then I'm trespassing. The same applies to my vehicle. Is this somehow not enough for you, WC? Must you treat me like a criminal? When you've stripped me, and everyone else, of our right to keep and bear arms {some might call that infringement} then the only ones bringing firearms onto your property will be criminals {perhaps thankful that no law-abiding citizen can deter them from whatever they may plan to do}. Aurora, Colorado might be a few people richer today had someone else violated the law and stopped that shooter, or would you hold such a person as a criminal for stopping a murderer?

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

I am frankly amazed that on this very site I have been accused of paranoia, yet you seek legislative protection from law-abiding citizens from crimes most will never commit. Oh, and no remonstration regarding "name-calling" in that instance either {just thought I'd mention}.

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses." - Plato

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting

WhitesCreek's picture
I don't believe you should

I don't believe you should have the right to bring a weapon onto my property. Whether it is in your pocket or your car makes no difference. If you do so against my wishes then you are the criminal.

onetahiti's picture
WC

This could also be viewed as a victory for the property rights of car owners and employees.

-- OneTahiti

WhitesCreek's picture
That's an incredible

That's an incredible stretch, OneT. What property right of an employee is compromised?

onetahiti's picture
WC

We have been over this before. Remember each person's car being an extension of his or her home?

I'm still wondering how you would enforce such a ban on guns. No criminal would care about a law or company policy either way. Are you going to thoroughly search every vehicle and person every day? We have all seen how well interdiction works in the war on drugs.

-- OneTahiti

To me it seems really

To me it seems really simple. If I get out of the vehicle with the firearm I am violating your property rights. If my firearm remains in my vehicle I get to retain my property rights.

As for your Cafe Racer reference - the shooter did have a conceal carry permit, but his rampage wasn't spur of the moment. He had been kicked out of the cafe repeatedly in the prior week due to an aggressive attitiude. He came back to the shop armed with intent to do harm.

And, in my opinion, the talking points were not beside the point. Your comment about seeing dead people spurred them. You took the focus away from property rights and focused it on irresponsible gun ownership. Irresponsible gun onwers are not concerned about your property rights.

Very Simple

You have the right to wear blue jeans. But not on my property if I say so, even while sitting in your car.

For several days

For several days I've been trying to form to words I wanted to add to this thread. I have given up. Southern Beale has expressed my thoughts exactly.
Thank you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.