Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Younggun]

Nah, he's tried to make these ridiculous arguments before.




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I didn't say that. I just said there are rules the govern these things. You have to follow rules to acquire property. There are basic conditions to traveling on property, such as gaining permission. But if you were to strict about this we would not have easy ways to travel long distances, no roads or trading routes, etc. And what if property owners said you couldn't carry your rifles on their land while you are traveling those long distances in the frontier? It's absurd. Same with a businesses that invite the public onto their property. It is inane that they would then say that you must forfeit your right to defend yourself.

I operate under the true libertarian position that property rights starts with self-ownership, and that this right is immutable and inviolable, and that one cannot logically or morally forfeit this basic right.

 

[Charlie]

I didn't say that. I just said there are rules the govern these things. You have to follow rules to acquire property. There are basic conditions to traveling on property, such as gaining permission. But if you were too strict about this we would not have easy ways to travel long distances, no roads or trading routes, etc. And what if property owners said you couldn't carry your rifles on their land while you are traveling those long distances in the frontier? It's absurd. Same with a businesses that invite the public onto their property. It is inane that they would then say that you must forfeit your right to defend yourself.

I operate under the true libertarian position that property rights starts with self-ownership, and that this right is immutable and inviolable, and that one cannot logically or morally forfeit this basic right.

Sorry, I can't figure out which side you are arguing on. You're not making any sense, IMO.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I bought mine!
So, you're saying I can come over to your house and walk in anytime, with guns, etc., without your permission? It certainly sounds that way. If someone comes to my house and walks in without my permission, they may not walk out, depending upon the circumstances.

Just shows your logic. I didn't say that I wouldn't need your permission. And your home is not open to the public and I'm pretty sure you got enough guns to defend me there if we were attacked. You could probably arm me with some decent stuff too. So, I wouldn't be happy with you disarming me if you invited me to your home, but I would feel pretty safe because I would know I could use your stuff if the shtf.

 

[Younggun]

And because you have self ownership, you are not forced to enter the property, therefore, not forced to disarm. Your self ownership argument defeats your argument against property rights.

Roads could still be built through the purchase of property.

You have no right to cross my property while traveling to work. That argument is moot. The only possible exception would be if I sold you property completely surrounded by my property. Then you would only have the right to carry on the easement access.


Also, you have no right to "easy traveling".




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[TAZ]

Unlike txinvestigator I don't believe the laws are perfect as they are and need some updates.

I do have an issue with the whole private property rights be self defense rights and think that we can balance the tide somehow where we aren't infringing on anyone. One of the most frustrating things I don't get is the whole how we define public vs private property. I'm sure that a lot of it is my lack of legal knowhow. To me if anyone can walk in and around during open hours it's not really private. Business also often get tax incentives or other low interest loans to start up. Tap into my wallet and you're DEFINITELY NOT a private business anymore. With all that stated here are my thoughts on the way to minimize impact on all folks.

1. 30-06 goes away and we resort back to verbal warning once someone sees your gun. If you're not concealing INSIDE a business (inside the premises) the owner has a right to ask you to leave or call the cops and have them ask you to leave. Failure to leave after verbal notification by LEO = class C misdemeanor. Yes I know that this might make gun-buster signs legal again, but the exemptions can be written properly.

2. 30-07 goes back to premises. I make a differentiation here because people still get giddy about seeing OC. Is it right; no but I'm willing to compromise till we get some more stats behind and give folks time to acclimate so to speak. Same sign requirements.

3. Apartments, condos, and any other rental property intended for living (not storage complexes) can in no way shape or form deny carry rights in the property. Only caveat would be inside leasing offices.

4. Liability for criminal activity. Businesses today AFAIK are absolved from liability due to criminal behavior on their property for the most part. That immunity should be specifically extended to criminal acts perpetrated by LTC holders. Have an ND at Walmart and Walmart isn't responsible. Shoot a bystander during a robbery the business isn't liable. IMO we don't need more punishment. We need more carrots.

 

[Charlie]

Unlike txinvestigator I don't believe the laws are perfect as they are and need some updates.

I do have an issue with the whole private property rights be self defense rights and think that we can balance the tide somehow where we aren't infringing on anyone. One of the most frustrating things I don't get is the whole how we define public vs private property. I'm sure that a lot of it is my lack of legal knowhow. To me if anyone can walk in and around during open hours it's not really private. Business also often get tax incentives or other low interest loans to start up. Tap into my wallet and you're DEFINITELY NOT a private business anymore. With all that stated here are my thoughts on the way to minimize impact on all folks.

1. 30-06 goes away and we resort back to verbal warning once someone sees your gun. If you're not concealing INSIDE a business (inside the premises) the owner has a right to ask you to leave or call the cops and have them ask you to leave. Failure to leave after verbal notification by LEO = class C misdemeanor. Yes I know that this might make gun-buster signs legal again, but the exemptions can be written properly.

2. 30-07 goes back to premises. I make a differentiation here because people still get giddy about seeing OC. Is it right; no but I'm willing to compromise till we get some more stats behind and give folks time to acclimate so to speak. Same sign requirements.

3. Apartments, condos, and any other rental property intended for living (not storage complexes) can in no way shape or form deny carry rights in the property. Only caveat would be inside leasing offices.

4. Liability for criminal activity. Businesses today AFAIK are absolved from liability due to criminal behavior on their property for the most part. That immunity should be specifically extended to criminal acts perpetrated by LTC holders. Have an ND at Walmart and Walmart isn't responsible. Shoot a bystander during a robbery the business isn't liable. IMO we don't need more punishment. We need more carrots.

So you're saying if I rented a house, I can not refuse entry to someone? Just want to be clear here.

 

[Savage20]

JohnnyLoco, your name suits you lol.

You as a patron want to force private businesses to cater to you. That's not being libertarian lol.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

And because you have self ownership, you are not forced to enter the property, therefore, not forced to disarm. Your self ownership argument defeats your argument against property rights.

Roads could still be built through the purchase of property.

You have no right to cross my property while traveling to work. That argument is moot. The only possible exception would be if I sold you property completely surrounded by my property. Then you would only have the right to carry on the easement access.


Also, you have no right to "easy traveling".




Sent from my HAL 9000

What if the property owners refused to sell? You've defeated your own argument. We would have no trade, no communities, no travel, just a few dickheads who control all the property.

What if the business is the only one of it's kind in a community and I have no other options. What if there is rampant crime in the area? Mass shootings? If they are open to the public, then they forfeit their right to regulate certain things, like the carrying of arms for defense. A private home or land that is not open to the public is different.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

JohnnyLoco, your name suits you lol.

You as a patron want to force private businesses to cater to you. That's not being libertarian lol.

The problem is that you guys don't understand the term libertarianism or have any idea where property rights come from. You think property ownerships comes poof out of thin air, but it just ain't so.

 

[Charlie]

My property ownership came from letting go of a good bit of cash and paying each month. And that money didn't come from thin air.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

And it's not catering to me for them to allow me to defend myself. They really don't have a choice in the matter. If they don't want guns, close their business off to the public and become a private club with armed security or mail order business

 

[Younggun]

What if the property owners refused to sell? You've defeated your own argument. We would have no trade, no communities, no travel, just a few dickheads who control all the property.

[/quote[

Yep, freedom is risky business.

What if the business is the only one of it's kind in a community and I have no other options. What if there is rampant crime in the area? Mass shootings? If they are open to the public, then they forfeit their right to regulate certain things, like the carrying of arms for defense. A private home or land that is not open to the public is different.

If it's the only business in town, too bad. You don't have a right to buy groceries. Grow a garden, trade with neighbors. If there is rampant crime in the area, too bad. Move or start working in your community to improve the area.

You have no right to an easy life.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Savage20]

So what other certain things do businesses forfeit once they're open to the public? You know, other than liberty.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

My property ownership came from letting go of a good bit of cash and paying each month. And that money didn't come from thin air.

Who said you can buy it?

 

[Charlie]

Nobody said I can or cannot, other than the former owner. WTF are you talkin' about? You're making no sense at all.

 

[Younggun]

The problem is that you guys don't understand the term libertarianism or have any idea where property rights come from. You think property ownerships comes poof out of thin air, but it just ain't so.

No, it comes from trading labor or knowledge (or both) for the property, often with some type of currency in the mix. Trading away life for the property. The rights to the property stem from the ownership of the property. Just like the rights to the fruits that come from an apple tree you grew and tended. Not everyone has a right to the byproduct of your hard work. And because you have the right to choose what happens to those apples or if anyone else gets them, you have the right to choose who gets them and under what conditions. If not, you don't actually own them.

"You didn't build that" comes to mind.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[JohnnyLoco]

What if the property owners refused to sell? You've defeated your own argument. We would have no trade, no communities, no travel, just a few dickheads who control all the property.

[/quote[

Yep, freedom is risky business.



If it's the only business in town, too bad. You don't have a right to buy groceries. Grow a garden, trade with neighbors. If there is rampant crime in the area, too bad. Move or start working in your community to improve the area.

You have no right to an easy life.


Sent from my HAL 9000

You're not a libertarian then. You're looking at only one side of the coin. There are always conditions in a free society among cooperative individuals. If America were like a fairy tale, out of Tolkien or Game of Thrones, you might have a point.

 

[Charlie]

I'm done.

 

[Younggun]

You're not a libertarian then. You're looking at only one side of the coin. There are always conditions in a free society among cooperative individuals. If America were like a fairy tale, out of Tolkien or Game of Thrones, you might have a point.

Lol.

Cooperative individuals cooperate of their own free will. Jews working in German factories as solace labor were not cooperative individuals. The baker who was forced to make a cake for a gay wedding was not a cooperative individual.

When you really on the government to force people to do thing s against their will, you no longer have a free society of cooperative individuals.

If you were truly libertarian you would support the rights of others to do things you disagree with. Instead, you are simply the mirror image of the liberal mindset. Using government to force your will on others, but with a reverse agenda.


Sent from my HAL 9000