cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
different moral codes for different folk. mine has evolved to where if its wrong its wrong even if no one catches me
different moral codes for different folk. mine has evolved to where if its wrong its wrong even if no one catches me
be man enough to really stand up and tell em you won't come on those terms. or it would appear that its only on the net whyere you stand up
I refuse to buy into this argument that guns are special and/or "extra dangerous".
If I had a friend tell me something like "You're welcome to come over, but not if you're going to wear that tee shirt with the picture of Snoopy on it." I wouldn't go to their house at all. A gun carried properly in a holster an not fiddled with is every bit as safe as a Snoopy tee shirt and the only reason to forbid it is out of hopolophobia and/or politics.
As for the argument that its the right of the homeowner to forbid entry of anything or anyone, I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean you should give up the right to NOT go where you are made to feel uncomfortable for your beliefs or the kind of property you own.
As for the argument that its the right of the homeowner to forbid entry of anything or anyone, I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean you should give up the right to NOT go where you are made to feel uncomfortable for your beliefs or the kind of property you own.
Hi Jaholder,
<My basic human right to self defense isn't trumped by someone's property rights.>
Property is also a basic human right along with castle doctrine. When you cross a property line you make the choice to suppress some of your rights in exchange for the owner to suppress his with your presence.
That said, the reason the property owner did not want the guy to carry on his property was never revealed. It could just as easily be that the owner does not trust the guys' weapon handling/judgment and is uncomfortable with the idea of him being armed. The owner has a God given right recognized by the US to be secure in his home. No judge in the land is going to supercede that right under the weight of a CCW.
Let me ask you this, if a person had a firing range on his/her property. A second person demands to use said range even though the owner does not trust his marksmanship and refuses to allow him to have a weapon on his property. Is that a violation of the second person's rights?
Quit talking about "rights." That goes nowhere... Right to self defense... Property rights... It's a big circular catch-22...
culture
Ask your bud "Why" and listen
Culture is a basic human right? Really?
So you're saying that I have more of a basic human right to go watch a play, listen to a symphony, or visit a museum, than I do to own property?
Interesting philiosphy. Skewed, but interesting.