nalioth
Member
The Annoyed Man said:But I do disagree with your idea that it is my duty to disobey unjust laws.
Rosa Parks did her duty.
The Annoyed Man said:But I do disagree with your idea that it is my duty to disobey unjust laws.
Yes, she did; but nobody but her defined for her what that duty was. Did other black Americans who chose other means of protest do wrong, while only Rosa Parks did right? Of course not. They each defined their own duty according to their individual consciences, and did not allow some unknown person on a discussion board to decide for them what their duty was.nalioth said:Rosa Parks did her duty.Originally Posted by The Annoyed Man
But I do disagree with your idea that it is my duty to disobey unjust laws.
He's right. The fact is that many of us are independent thinkers and iconoclasts, and we don't play well with others. nalioth writes as if Rosa Parks acted in a vacuum. She didn't. Rosa Parks was an active member of the NAACP, Montgomery chapter, and she was already actively involved in the fight for civil rights when she made her famous move on that bus. The point is that she was a member of a larger organization that was accruing political power and momentum, and she was not only a member, she was its secretary and participated in its leadership. It is also worth pointing out that, other than the one incident on that bus, she always behaved within the law. There was a civil rights groundswell across the nation at that time, AND civil rights actions, whether legal or not, largely had the support of America's print and broadcast media. Those two salient facts are what made Rosa Parks' stand on the bus successful and gave it national meaning.Well, the main problem is that gun folks just aren't able to work together. My girlfriend's nine-year-old has a longer attention span, and plays better with others...
And as a licensed permit holder I can't, along with that goes any business that has been polluted by media hype and smacks a sign up with no facts or reason behind it other than it is easier to put up a NO than to think out the situation and not post anything at all.As a LEO I can carry in post offices and county federal buildings.
Malls present a target rich environment of (generally) unarmed victims, especially during the Christmas season.
Where I live in Colorado you're more likely to be considered an outcast if you don't carry a gun everywhere you go.-Bailey Guns
Dear Management:
I'm writing to inquire about your facility's policy on weapons. Do you allow legal gun owners to carry there? Do you have armed security guards and/or metal detectors? How close is the nearest police station? I'm planning to go out with a bang and become famous next month and I don't want it cut short by some gun-toting shopper.
Sincerely,
Lou Natik
The way I see it, a private property owner has the right to ban guns from his property. Private property rights are also one of the foundations of our system.
Does the right to bear arms trounce that? I'm really not sure. It's an odd brain-twister when you're weighing one against the other. Still, if I'm forced to decide between my right to life and a corporation's right to property, life wins.
The way I see it, a private property owner has the right to ban guns from his property. Private property rights are also one of the foundations of our system.
A business is a public place and it appears there are states, like yours, who recognize an individuals right of protection above that public places' ability to prevent you from your personal protection.
Quote:
frankly. other than looking for publicity, grandstanding or something, I can't for a moment understand why you would write that letter in the first place.
Mannlicher,
Try re-reading or reading post #47 on this thread. I think you may then better understand what these sort of letters hope to accomplish
Right. Or so the argument goes. However, there is a significant distinction between a "No tobacco" zone and a "No smoking" zone. Kind of like the difference between a "No guns" zone and a "No shooting" zone. No amount of smoking will save you life, though.isnt that the same logic that lawmakers use to justify smoking bans?
let me get this straight... property owners have the right to not allow guns... but they dont have the right to allow smokers?
Spoken like a man living in a state where the silly signs do not carry the force of [criminal] law. It also ignore the "attractive nuisance" aspect of the "criminal protection zone" signs.My point, arcane as it may be to some, is that I would not contact the mall at all. I feel no reason to tip them off as to my thoughts on their posted sign. I continue to carry concealed, where and when I feel its appropriate. I am not going to let Simon Malls, or some PC forum member dictate how and under what circumstances I am able to provide for my safety.