Well. The discussion deals more than property rights
1. Right of self defense. The individuals right to defend oneself
2. Right to control property
One is specifically mentioned in the constitution.
One is a derived right that is not specifically mentioned but is inferred.
The discussion revolves around the clash of these rights and which one takes presidence
I protect my private property by locking the door and only letting a very limited number of people in. I do not have an open door policy like say a business open to the public does.
I am also a proponent of controlling actions instead of implements. If someone acts like an ass then act upon their actions and not what they have tucked in their waist band.
With regard to the whole simple sign. I dare you to start a business with tax backed loans or even your own money and post a sign that stated no droopy pants black people allowed and see how that goes over.
Hope you have some cash for legal fees left over. Heck for that matter I dare you to go ask a droopy pants black guy to leave cause he is black and has droopy pants. Good luck with that.
I'd much rather go down the road of protecting the 2nd as the civil right it is and place the same limits on folks violating it as we do on folks violating gay rights or black rights or Muslim rights.
Instead I've suggested a compromise where a business owner may ask a gun owner, or anyone for that matter, whom he identifies as behaving in a manner not to his liking to simply leave.
In your opinion. See that is why I fall back on the law because everyone differs on where and how they decide what is or isn't a right. Here we actually have courts that decide what is a right by law and it surely differs from your opinion. So we can have a discussion where nothing can be defined because everyone can, and will, define things differently or we can have a discussion with agreed on definitions by basing thing as defined by our laws and courts. I think it's obvious what is the most productive.
And if you don't think it's off topic you are not being very honest. It's a topic that is important to you but certainly not what the OP was about. Mind you I've gone off topic more than a few times but just cause you want to continue a hijack doesn't mean it isn't a hijack or that I have to go there.
I think it can be narrowed to one specific question.
"Does one have the intrinsic right to enter the private property of another"
Sent from my HAL 9000
I get what you're saying. The reason it wasn't a hijack is because the discussion revolves around the very idea of whether or not a person has the right to determine the conditions for entering their property. YG and I believe they do. Several others want to follow suit with the states that force a business to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to. I am against that philosophy across the board, be it 30.06 or cake for a gay wedding.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Unless you think there is even the slightest chance of legislating or even judicial change then it's BS navel gazing.
Well. The discussion deals more than property rights
1. Right of self defense. The individuals right to defend oneself
2. Right to control property
One is specifically mentioned in the constitution.
One is a derived right that is not specifically mentioned but is inferred.
The discussion revolves around the clash of these rights and which one takes presidence
So if SCOTUS rules that the 2A only applies to military personnel and sweeping firearms bans are passed across the nation, will you "fall back on the law" and simply accept the the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists. It was written out of existence just like that?
Or are you simply falling back on the law in this thread because it happens to work in your favor? If you are not emotional you can follow logic to the answer. Disregard your own agenda and get a clear view of the field.
As far as a hijack goes, the entire premise of this thread comes down to the rights of the property owner and whether or not they exist. If you can't answer the question of whether or not the property owners rights are being violated then no other questions on this thread can be answered.
Sent from my HAL 9000
But, in order to discuss property rights, we need to identify what other rights we each have.
www.TexasGunTrust.com
I believe there will be legislation advanced to change the sign requirements to gun buster signs.
If this happens, then we need to implement a decriminalized trespass regime in exchange for relaxed signage.
www.TexasGunTrust.com
Actually, you cannot in this context because we are talking about the conflict of rights amongst individuals
www.TexasGunTrust.com