Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on November 11, 2013, 08:24:20 PM
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gonzaga-students-hit-probation-pulling-gun-intruder-131313733--abc-news-topstories.html
Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.
Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.
McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.
I cant help but see the easy comparison to liberal ideology on guns here and the campus rules.
-
Hey, they agreed to attend an anti-gun, private, religious university then act all surprised when they're booted for not following the rules.
I bet they dont have this rule for apartments near Texa A&M lol...
seriously studs... when you're signing up for school, work, or anything else - and they're anti gun, you don't sign up.
I have no problem with a PRIVATE INSTITUTION saying X or Y or Z about guns. "Must carry open" or "Must qualify on gun range to enter" are cool rules, and "no guns anywhere in your college apartment", while a shitty rule, is their choice as a private institution.
If you dislike it -tell them - and enroll elsewhere.
-
Can we ban 240 from the political board.... lol
-
Accountability is something that only applies to poor people, apparently.
-
I'd be interested in knowing what % of private universities (or even public universities) prohibit their students from owning legal guns (even with a permit) in their housing. Theft, liability, common shared areas, etc... I bet most schools take this limitation. Can't imagine the insurance costs of schools that allow heat in dorms.
I can't imagine living on campus, going to school again... "No guns here"... lol... GTFO, how dare some pimply weakling administrator tell me I can't pack heat? Their private school, their rules, but no thanks for me.
-
where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?
I think expulsion for this is way to much.
My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.
Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.
-
where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?
I think expulsion for this is way to much.
My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.
Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.
I think any PRIVATE person should be able to decide what happens on their property. Govt or anyone else shouldn't tell them it's a pro- or anti-gun area. It's YOUR area, and minimal govt involvement means just that.
I think it'd be insane to ever sign up for living in an apartment - when I have a gun permit - and the school/owner of this property says I cannot have a gun there. I'd go elsewhere for education and living. But I'd never try to dictate their policy - it's PRIVATE property, both their school and their housing complexes. AND I think that if enough people told them "I dislike your gun policy, so I'm taking my $50 grand for education elsewhere", they would CHANGE the policy.
These kids just broke a law at a private school, and wonder why the private school doesn't want them there anymore. Duh.
-
I think any PRIVATE person should be able to decide what happens on their property. Govt or anyone else shouldn't tell them it's a pro- or anti-gun area. It's YOUR area, and minimal govt involvement means just that.
I think it'd be insane to ever sign up for living in an apartment - when I have a gun permit - and the school/owner of this property says I cannot have a gun there. I'd go elsewhere for education and living. But I'd never try to dictate their policy - it's PRIVATE property, both their school and their housing complexes. AND I think that if enough people told them "I dislike your gun policy, so I'm taking my $50 grand for education elsewhere", they would CHANGE the policy.
These kids just broke a law at a private school, and wonder why the private school doesn't want them there anymore. Duh.
again this thread was not about the validity of their punishment, but the idiocy of the rule itself...
try and keep up
and 240 you have proven you are no pro gun advocate, you can say it all you want buy you are about as pro gun as those anti gun nut jobs crying about muzzle breaks, pistol grips and folding stocks
-
again this thread was not about the validity of their punishment, but the idiocy of the rule itself...
try and keep up
and 240 you have proven you are no pro gun advocate, you can say it all you want buy you are about as pro gun as those anti gun nut jobs crying about muzzle breaks, pistol grips and folding stocks
The article wasn't about "the VALIDITY of the punishment"? Okay, cool.
if you want to argue if the rules is idiotic, we can do that. From what point of view would you like to argue it?
If you own stock/shares in this school, you probably support the rule because it's the most cost effective... Insurance costs probably skyrocket when you try to tell a firm you alow open carry or something.
If you own a gun and like to carry one, you see the rule as intruding on your right to bear arms, completely fair.
and there's really no need to make this about "240, you are a anti gunner..." I like to discuss issues from different vantage points.
-
The article wasn't about "the VALIDITY of the punishment"? Okay, cool.
if you want to argue if the rules is idiotic, we can do that. From what point of view would you like to argue it?
If you own stock/shares in this school, you probably support the rule because it's the most cost effective... Insurance costs probably skyrocket when you try to tell a firm you alow open carry or something.
If you own a gun and like to carry one, you see the rule as intruding on your right to bear arms, completely fair.
and there's really no need to make this about "240, you are a anti gunner..." I like to discuss issues from different vantage points.
did I say the article wasnt or the thread wasnt?
This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.
its funny how you never take the pro gun stance
-
Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.
Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.
-
Accountability is something that only applies to poor people, apparently.
How is this relevant to the issue at hand?
-
Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.
Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.
It's not a public, state university - It's a PRIVATE school. And while I would never attend such a shit school, I do support people being able to do what they want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY in their OWN PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.
It's really weird here - For the state to tell them "You have to allow people to carry guns on your property, in your private place of business" - Isn't THAT a nanny state? isn't THAT a case of the govt telling people how to run their own businesses?
I truly LOVE a nation where people can say "No purple shirts or yellow shoes on my property!" and people have to abide... I abhor a nation where the state TELLS YOU that you have to let people wear nazi or whatever stuff in your business. I love the idea of a businessman being able to say "I don't want any Obama voters on my property, I will not serve you dinner" or something like that.
If you look at it this way... the fact they're allowed to do what they want ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, on their own private university... that's actually a WIN for the libertarian cause. The people have to vote with their pocketbook and everyone enroll in the gun-friendly University across town, ya know?
-
This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.
its funny how you never take the pro gun stance
I *think* I'm taking the pro-Constitution stance here?
Suppose tonymctones is a landlord.... He OWNS property. His potential tenants like to wear swastikas (or whatever highly offensive things) and while they're LEGAL, tony wants them the hell off his property. He wants to NOT rent to them - to make it a REQUIREMENT for living there, that people can't display X or Y or Z while living there. While it violates the lega rights of these tenants, hey, it's tony's damn property and he doesn't want that garbage there.
Now... I side with tony... a private citizen that owns this private property. I think a "nanny state" would be the one which says he has to let certain beliefs be permeated on his land.
-
Hey, they agreed to attend an anti-gun, private, religious university then act all surprised when they're booted for not following the rules.
I bet they dont have this rule for apartments near Texa A&M lol...
seriously studs... when you're signing up for school, work, or anything else - and they're anti gun, you don't sign up.
I have no problem with a PRIVATE INSTITUTION saying X or Y or Z about guns. "Must carry open" or "Must qualify on gun range to enter" are cool rules, and "no guns anywhere in your college apartment", while a shitty rule, is their choice as a private institution.
If you dislike it -tell them - and enroll elsewhere.
I disagree. I'm of the belief that every single human being has the fundamental human right to self defense. No private or public organization can hinder this right.
-
I disagree. I'm of the belief that every single human being has the fundamental human right to self defense. No private or public organization can hinder this right.
It's so tricky. If I live in the USA and I own a piece of property, I should have the right to tell "guests" or "patrons" or anything else, that I don't want them to wear XYZ on their clothing, right? I WANT a shopkeeper to be able to throw out a person with some highly offensive 9/11 halloween costume or swastika t-shirt, ya know? YES, it does violate that person's first amendment right - BUT it's on my property and they're free to leave.
Same with the 4th amendment - "You ain't coming into my place of business unless I can search you for weapons!"
If I run a night club (private establishment) and ten dudes hop out of a SUV with trench coats and its 95 degress out - then YES - I want to violate their rights on search/seize and I want my door man to frisk them. We're all cool with that, right? No sense allowing a robbery crew to come waltzing in.
So can we agree it's okay for private citizens, on their private property, to violate these 2 constitutional rights, in order to preserve their own safety, profitability, and even just comfort (what they have to view on t-shirts)?
-
I don't mean to come off as a fence sitter but I think both of you guys have a point. Gonzaga is a private university and can make all the rules it wants. However, expelling the kids seems like to harsh a punishment. A stern warning would suffice.
-
Another situation where a gun saved lives.
Why doesn't the media report more on situations like this?
And yes, there are many, many cases like this where people either save themselves or others by brandishing their weapons. There are more of those situations than mass killings, but you only see the sensationalism of gun violence in the media.
-
Another situation where a gun saved lives.
Why doesn't the media report more on situations like this?
And yes, there are many, many cases like this where people either save themselves of others by brandishing their weapons. There are more of those situations than mass killings, but you only see the sensationalism of gun violence in the media.
The media has to first be honest about who are the majority of people using guns in the commission of a crime are. It's sure as hell aren't legal gun owners.
-
I don't mean to come off as a fence sitter but I think both of you guys have a point. Gonzaga is a private university and can make all the rules it wants. However, expelling the kids seems like to harsh a punishment. A stern warning would suffice.
Thanks man. I think we commonly accept AND ENDORSE the removal of some Constitutional rights on a daily basis on private property - our own included - and it's totally cool. And while I DISAGREE with the policies of Gonzaga, I respect their right to make whatever rules they want, on their own private property.
On the other point you make, while the punishment might be harsh, again, it's their prerogative. if I have a no-swastika policy in my house, and some dude wears such a shirt ONCE, I'm gonna ban him for life (expel). If three dudes with trenchcoats and shotguns try to sneak their straps into my private night club ONCE, they're banned for life. And if the policy is "no guns", and FOUR MONTHS into this semester, I discover this kid with a permit has been violating my rule - 24/7, on an ongoing basis since school started in August - then I can completely understand their position. It's not like he had just moved in. he'd carried a gun and violated the rule daily, and even with a "suspension" or other punishment, lol, I know that very few permit holders are going to just cave... he may sneak it in.
it's their call, to decide if its a lifetime ban. While I consider the rule to be bullshit, I totally respect the right of any private firm/individual to make as many bullshit rules on their property... this is America.
-
When a guest is on your property, you're totally cool with requiring them to suspend their constitutional rights.
If you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons, violating their constitutional rights. You can have your bouncer search them (4th amendment), you can tell them no XYZ shirts, violating 1st amendment.
-
where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?
I think expulsion for this is way to much.
My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.
Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.
LOL. You are one tiresome little worm.
Either he should be held accountable or not, don't you agree? So don't play word games, fake judo champ.
It's true you did not expressly say (write) that dude shouldn't be held accountable. That was my inference.
Was my inference wrong, though?: Because if you think that the rule is asinine, it stands to reason that you'd think he should not be held accountable for breaking that rule, right?
The exception that comes to mind would be if you thought the rule was stupid SOLELY because the penalty was inappropriately severe. I don't think you're saying that, though, but maybe you'd be nice enough to clear that up? I won't hold my breath.
And besides, it's possible that you don't even really know what you were thinking -- Having multiple personalities would explain a few things about stuff you've written here, haha. (Not the least of which is your multiple National Championships in judo, of course.)
-
did I say the article wasnt or the thread wasnt?
This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.
its funny how you never take the pro gun stance
reframe
misdirect by personal attack
typical
Redirecting the chi of the argument vs facing it headon. Impressive. Are you sure you don't want to also claim a world championship in Akido?
-
Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.
Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.
This is a good question that begs the answer of someone who actually has some legal knowledge. (Unlike the crew of about 20 of us who come to this board regularly, haha.)
FWIW, I've seen youtube videos of Open Carry advocates where they seem to have no problem with refraining from bringing their weapons into businesses that've posted signs saying "no guns on the premises". Many of the Open Carry guys seem like the types that, if they thought those signs were violating their rights, they would make a big deal about it and I haven't seen that. Maybe someone here knows more?
-
How is this relevant to the issue at hand?
Glad you asked.
TonyMcFakyJudoChamp is very fond of banging the accountability drum when it comes to whether the government should give aid to the poor. His point is that the great majority of disadvantaged are responsible for their own desperate circumstances so they should be held accountable by not receiving the government aid that they do now.
In this case, however, he seems to be saying that it's wrong for the gun dude to be accountable for breaking the university rules though he clearly brought that shit on himself.
(It's my feeling that the guy should not be expelled for this reason alone; If he's been an otherwise good student, just give him a warning. If he's been a fuckup in other ways though, boot him out.
If you have any other questions or would like any additional information, please let me know. Thanks.
-
It's not a public, state university - It's a PRIVATE school. And while I would never attend such a shit school, I do support people being able to do what they want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY in their OWN PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.
It's really weird here - For the state to tell them "You have to allow people to carry guns on your property, in your private place of business" - Isn't THAT a nanny state? isn't THAT a case of the govt telling people how to run their own businesses?
I truly LOVE a nation where people can say "No purple shirts or yellow shoes on my property!" and people have to abide... I abhor a nation where the state TELLS YOU that you have to let people wear nazi or whatever stuff in your business. I love the idea of a businessman being able to say "I don't want any Obama voters on my property, I will not serve you dinner" or something like that.
If you look at it this way... the fact they're allowed to do what they want ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, on their own private university... that's actually a WIN for the libertarian cause. The people have to vote with their pocketbook and everyone enroll in the gun-friendly University across town, ya know?
All of this should be evident to everyone here. Pretty telling when folks think that the right to have weapons should trump private property rights.
BTw, not sure why TonyMcFakeJudo cares about this; He don't need no stinkin' handguns when he's got his National Championship level Judo to rely on. They can't take that from him.
-
This is a good question that begs the answer of someone who actually has some legal knowledge. (Unlike the crew of about 20 of us who come to this board regularly, haha.)
Your "knowledge" is inexplicably missing from all the crapcare threads.
It's understandable. "Legal knowledge" doesn't translate into common sense.
-
Your "knowledge" is inexplicably missing from all the crapcare threads.
It's understandable. "Legal knowledge" doesn't translate into common sense.
Missing how? Missing because I haven't contributed or missing because what I've contributed isn't what you'd call knowledge? (I've contributed to lots of those threads, btw.)
Also, screw common sense. "Common sense" is the well that the uneducated go to way to often. Actual knowledge is better. Don't think so? Cool, why don't you go prove that by going on the steroid sub-forum and argue from "common sense" with the folks including both doctors and those with years of first-hand knowledge about steroid-related topics. After you've been torn a new asshole, come back and let me know what you think then, OK?
-
aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? ???
should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?
yes or no?
-
aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? ???
should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?
yes or no?
???
-
Only if it doesn't receive federal or state funding.
-
aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? ???
should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?
yes or no?
Private institutions should be allowed to set their rules and regulations as they wish, as long as they don't violate personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.
They're a private enterprise--not a sovereign nation.
-
Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical.
It's like taking a back alley known for violent rape and deciding the solution is to make it a "man free zone" and arresting husbands who attempt to escort their wives through the alley.
Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens under the guise of preventing crime is so absurd that you expect to see it listed under "logical paradoxes" on Wikipedia or as an example used in the definition of "oxymoron."
-
So the criminal thought it was a "NO GUNS" zone when he entered, but 'cos someone broke the rule it ruined his happy plans!
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gonzaga-students-hit-probation-pulling-gun-intruder-131313733--abc-news-topstories.html
Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.
Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.
McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.
I cant help but see the easy comparison to liberal ideology on guns here and the campus rules.
-
aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? ???
should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?
yes or no?
would you be ok with a restaraunt not serving blacks or gays?
its a private establishment as well
-
Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical.
It's like taking a back alley known for violent rape and deciding the solution is to make it a "man free zone" and arresting husbands who attempt to escort their wives through the alley.
Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens under the guise of preventing crime is so absurd that you expect to see it listed under "logical paradoxes" on Wikipedia or as an example used in the definition of "oxymoron."
this is more to the point of why I posted this thread
-
Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical.
Wait a sec. You're pretty much right about gun free zones not doing jack to prevent murderous rampages, but is that really all they're meant to prevent? I don't think so.
Don't you think such rules would likely be good at preventing gun violence between halfway-law abiding folks because of temporary loss of self-control due to extreme emotions, though?
For example, if Doison and I meet in a gun-free zone and begin angrily arguing politics, there's a much smaller chance of him shooting me (which he'd probably want to do after feeling threatened by my obviously superior size and muscularity) in a gun-free zone, right? ;D
-
Wait a sec. You're pretty much right about gun free zones not doing jack to prevent murderous rampages, but is that really all they're meant to prevent? I don't think so.
Don't you think such rules would likely be good at preventing gun violence between halfway-law abiding folks because of temporary loss of self-control due to extreme emotions, though?
For example, if Doison and I meet in a gun-free zone and begin angrily arguing politics, there's a much smaller chance of him shooting me (which he'd probably want to do after feeling threatened by my obviously superior size and muscularity) in a gun-free zone, right? ;D
Think about that for a second....how can you make the argument that I won't break the law (more severe offense) by shooting you because I won't break the law (much smaller crime) of carrying a gun there?
I'm willing to break the law and kill you...but I wouldn't DARE break the law by carrying a gun there. That's the logic here?
Let's apply that to another scenario. If someone goes driving around running over pedestrians in some crime of passion, is the solution to put a "no driving zone" sign on the sidewalk?
I say the solution is banning superior musculature intimidation by making city streets a "no muscle zone."
-
Private institutions should be allowed to set their rules and regulations as they wish, as long as they don't violate personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.
the constitution promises me right to free speech - but movie theaters can throw me out for talking.
2nd amendment guarantees me right to bear arms - but my local gun store refuses to let anyone enter while armed. You can put the gun unloaded in its case and carry in. But as anti-Obama as they are, you are NOT wearing in your permit/glock.
4th amendment promises no illegal searches - but you wear a trenchcoat with bulges to the night club, and yes, they're searching you before letting you enter. "Open the coat, brah..."
Heck, try wearing a Hitler t-shirt to just about any store... see if they let you in lol... Free speech, my ass, on private property.
The fact is, we see standard consitutional rights revoked all the day time by PRIVATE businesses. It sucks, but we're free to use other business. I do'nt like the "no carry" policy of the gun store, (I bought a glock there a decade back before this policy) so I will go to other stores with less selection, because hey, they're not dicks. But I do respect their right to be anti-carry dicks. I just don't shop there.
-
Think about that for a second....how can you make the argument that I won't break the law (more severe offense) by shooting you because I won't break the law (much smaller crime) of carrying a gun there?
Because you decided to break the law due to being angry. And you became angry AFTER you entered the gun free zone.
This makes some sense. Especially for places where it's likely that some folks are going to completely lose their tempers occasionally (like anywhere alcohol is served to assholes).
To spell it out: A guy enters the bar or sporting event complying with the no gun rule because he's a law abiding citizen type but, while there, he gets pissed at something (his team losing or some drunken idiot pawing his wife or whatever) and loses his freaking mind. Well, even though he's now pissed enough to shoot someone, he can't because he doesn't have his gun.
(Of course, MY big guns are always with me, if ya know what I mean.) (All right that was corny, yeah.)
Also, for places where it's VERY VERY likely that some asshole will occasionally want to shoot up the place (like the court house or your average hip hop club), you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.
-
BTW, sometimes those gun free zones signs make no sense to me, either.
For example, my gym (a high-end 24-hour club with pools, rockwall, BB and Raquetball, restaurant, and beauty salon-type thing) has a sign saying no guns. I haven't been able to figure out why, though. (Except that maybe anexperienced gym-goer like myself might have once tried to cap one of these old-ass freaks who constantly display poor gym etiquette by doing shit like resting on machines in between sets.)
-
you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.
this would violate their 4th amendment rights.
I guess, we all get these rights violated when we fly, right?
It's part of everyday life, we give up some rights for overall safety and the preferences of those who run private establishments.
Goodness, if the govt told me that I HAVE to let some prick in a cruel shirt, packing heat, insulting my other, onto my PRIVATE property lol... I'd laugh them off
-
Because you decided to break the law due to being angry. And you became angry AFTER you entered the gun free zone.
This makes some sense. Especially for places where it's likely that some folks are going to completely lose their tempers occasionally (like anywhere alcohol is served to assholes).
To spell it out: A guy enters the bar or sporting event complying with the no gun rule because he's a law abiding citizen type but, while there, he gets pissed at something (his team losing or some drunken idiot pawing his wife or whatever) and loses his freaking mind. Well, even though he's now pissed enough to shoot someone, he can't because he doesn't have his gun.
(Of course, MY big guns are always with me, if ya know what I mean.) (All right that was corny, yeah.)
Also, for places where it's VERY VERY likely that some asshole will occasionally want to shoot up the place (like the court house or your average hip hop club), you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.
Why stop at the "no gun zone" sign then? Why not just make it a "no being bad zone" so that no one does anything wrong at all?
-
this would violate their 4th amendment rights.
I guess, we all get these rights violated when we fly, right?
It's part of everyday life, we give up some rights for overall safety and the preferences of those who run private establishments.
Goodness, if the govt told me that I HAVE to let some prick in a cruel shirt, packing heat, insulting my other, onto my PRIVATE property lol... I'd laugh them off
again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?
-
again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?
Yes.
-
again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?
Yes, as much as I am for blacks and gays excluding whites from their private establishments-which they do. It's more complicated when you include privately owned medical facilities. In this case, barring anyone with a life threatening condition is immoral.
-
Yes.
Yes, as much as I am for blacks and gays excluding whites from their private establishments-which they do. It's more complicated when you include privately owned medical facilities. In this case, barring anyone with a life threatening condition is immoral.
Agreed but people like 240 would be the first to piss and moan about it
-
I think every single one of us allows our constitutional rights to be suspended on private property all of the time.
We just pick and choose which ones we want to complain about.
Private property is a tricky issue... how many of us want the govt telling us that 100 people with hitler t-shirts and suspicious gun bulges should be able to sit in our private business?
-
the constitution promises me right to free speech - but movie theaters can throw me out for talking.
2nd amendment guarantees me right to bear arms - but my local gun store refuses to let anyone enter while armed. You can put the gun unloaded in its case and carry in. But as anti-Obama as they are, you are NOT wearing in your permit/glock.
4th amendment promises no illegal searches - but you wear a trenchcoat with bulges to the night club, and yes, they're searching you before letting you enter. "Open the coat, brah..."
Heck, try wearing a Hitler t-shirt to just about any store... see if they let you in lol... Free speech, my ass, on private property.
The fact is, we see standard consitutional rights revoked all the day time by PRIVATE businesses. It sucks, but we're free to use other business. I do'nt like the "no carry" policy of the gun store, (I bought a glock there a decade back before this policy) so I will go to other stores with less selection, because hey, they're not dicks. But I do respect their right to be anti-carry dicks. I just don't shop there.
Things like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre aren't protected by free speech because they risk endangering others in attendance if it causes a mass panic.
The examples you give all lead to the act of expressing your constitutional right causing a violation of the rights/privileges/potential-safety, etc of others (I don't necessarily agree with all of them...especially most 2nd and 4th amendment cases)
Ultimately, your individual rights aren't more important than the rights of other individuals. Private institutions should be free to decide when the expression of your rights infringe too much on the rights of others in the institution.
I realize that this leaves a huge freedom of interpretation by the institution, but there isn't really a logical "one-to-one & onto" set for each and every case of an individual's right vs its affect on the rights of others.
The important thing is that private institutions are allowed the autonomy of deciding these cases in their own; the government sets a minimal level of individual constitutional rights/privileges and an individual who feels their constitutional rights are wrongfully violated by a private institution can bring case against the institution with the government.
The PROBLEM comes when the government over-steps the bounds of (wha should be) a minimal set of constitutionally guaranteed rights and removes the rights of the private institution by micro-managing and over legislating.
Hippies love to think they're giving "power to the people" with big government regulations, but it's the opposite that happens--it removes the power of the private institution and it negates the power of the individual who feels the private institution is violating their personal rights.
-
I think every single one of us allows our constitutional rights to be suspended on private property all of the time.
We just pick and choose which ones we want to complain about.
Private property is a tricky issue... how many of us want the govt telling us that 100 people with hitler t-shirts and suspicious gun bulges should be able to sit in our private business?
you didnt answer the question there moron, are you ok with blacks, gays etc not being serviced at private establishments?
-
you didnt answer the question there moron, are you ok with blacks, gays etc not being serviced at private establishments?
I'm not, in most cases. If the "private establishment" needs any sort of license to operate, then no, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race.
However, if it's TRULY private, like if it's some dude's pool house where he's having some kind of party or something, then hell yeah, keep out whomever you want.
-
I'm not, in most cases. If the "private establishment" needs any sort of license to operate, then no, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race.
However, if it's TRULY private, like if it's some dude's pool house where he's having some kind of party or something, then hell yeah, keep out whomever you want.
lets keep it to the context of privately owned business open to the public
why then are you ok with discriminating against those who are legally exercising their right to own guns?
-
lets keep it to the context of privately owned business open to the public
why then are you ok with discriminating against those who are legally exercising their right to own guns?
Please give me an example of the kind of business you're talking about first.
-
Please give me an example of the kind of business you're talking about first.
a restaraunt, bar, daycare...take your pick, it doesnt matter what private business it is.
-
a restaraunt, bar, daycare...take your pick, it doesnt matter what private business it is.
Pretty sure that all those businesses require government licenses to operate so I'd say no, they are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race.
-
Pretty sure that all those businesses require government licenses to operate so I'd say no, they are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race.
so does an apartment, so why are they allowed to discriminate against a constitutionally protected right?
-
so does an apartment, so why are they allowed to discriminate against a constitutionally protected right?
Renting an apartment requires a license? I don't think I know what you mean.
As far as asking why it's permissible for a licensed business to say "no guns" but not "no blacks" or "no gays", I'm really not sure but I have a few guesses:
- It may be because there are specific anti-discrimination laws on the books that deal with businesses trying to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation.
- It may be because guns are much more of a safety issue.
- It may have something to do with the fact that businesses have a right to not serve individuals based on their conduct (but not to not serve classes of people based on traits they can't change).
-
All of us ACCEPT being stripped of our rights on a daily basis. We're cool with it on SOME things.
Getting on a plane, we surrender our 4th amendment rights. You cannot search my suitcase if I'm carrying it down the street without probable cause or you violate my 4th rights. But hey, welcome to the airport, search my shit, here you go, thanks for the Anal search too, Mr TSA dude.
So really, we're just picking & choosing which we want to disagree with
-
When a guest is on your property, you're totally cool with requiring them to suspend their constitutional rights.
Oh boy... time for Civics 101!
If you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons, violating their constitutional rights.
It's true that if you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons. It's not true that in kicking them out you're violating their constitutional rights. The Constitution binds the Federal Government and it's agents. Via the 14th Amendment it also binds, as appropriate, the States and their agents. An individual in their private capacity cannot violate the rights afforded you by the Constitution.
If you believe this is mistaken, then please explain which rights afforded us under the Constitution of the United States can be violated by an individual in his private capacity and how such a violation could occur. It might be helpful if you can provide links to the relevant jurisprudence.
You can have your bouncer search them (4th amendment), you can tell them no XYZ shirts, violating 1st amendment.
Except you aren't violating their constitutional rights. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution limit what the government can do and can't bind individuals in their private capacity. Don't take my word for it though:
The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is mine; it doesn't get any more clear than this.
The 4th Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This one isn't quite as clear for a number of reasons, but fear not. In U.S. v. Jacobsen (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=109), Justice Stevens writes that the Fourth Amendment is "wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (466 U.S. 109).
I could go on, but the point is that when an Amendment doesn't explicitly state that it binds the Government and only the Government, controlling case law and decades of jurisprudence do. It's simple: private individuals cannot violate your constitutional rights.
If I want to search you before letting you into my house, that's perfectly fine from a 4th Amendment point of view. If I want to say you can't post on GetBig while you are in my house, that's perfectly fine from a 1st Amendment point of view. See, among other cases Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0507_ZS.html).
To be clear, perhaps these kinds of positions are douchey positions for me to adopt, but neither involves a violation of your Constitutional rights. Because - and please repeat after me - people acting in their individual capacity and not as an agent of the Government cannot violate the rights afforded you by the U.S. Constitution.
-
great post man!
-
Oh boy... time for Civics 101!
It's true that if you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons. It's not true that in kicking them out you're violating their constitutional rights. The Constitution binds the Federal Government and it's agents. Via the 14th Amendment it also binds, as appropriate, the States and their agents. An individual in their private capacity cannot violate the rights afforded you by the Constitution.
If you believe this is mistaken, then please explain which rights afforded us under the Constitution of the United States can be violated by an individual in his private capacity and how such a violation could occur. It might be helpful if you can provide links to the relevant jurisprudence.
Except you aren't violating their constitutional rights. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution limit what the government can do and can't bind individuals in their private capacity. Don't take my word for it though:
The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is mine; it doesn't get any more clear than this.
The 4th Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This one isn't quite as clear for a number of reasons, but fear not. In U.S. v. Jacobsen (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=109), Justice Stevens writes that the Fourth Amendment is "wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (466 U.S. 109).
I could go on, but the point is that when an Amendment doesn't explicitly state that it binds the Government and only the Government, controlling case law and decades of jurisprudence do. It's simple: private individuals cannot violate your constitutional rights.
If I want to search you before letting you into my house, that's perfectly fine from a 4th Amendment point of view. If I want to say you can't post on GetBig while you are in my house, that's perfectly fine from a 1st Amendment point of view. See, among other cases Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0507_ZS.html).
To be clear, perhaps these kinds of positions are douchey positions for me to adopt, but neither involves a violation of your Constitutional rights. Because - and please repeat after me - people acting in their individual capacity and not as an agent of the Government cannot violate the rights afforded you by the U.S. Constitution.
I'm not too proud to say that I needed this civics refresher. Thanks!!
-
Renting an apartment requires a license? I don't think I know what you mean.
As far as asking why it's permissible for a licensed business to say "no guns" but not "no blacks" or "no gays", I'm really not sure but I have a few guesses:
- It may be because there are specific anti-discrimination laws on the books that deal with businesses trying to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation.
- It may be because guns are much more of a safety issue.
- It may have something to do with the fact that businesses have a right to not serve individuals based on their conduct (but not to not serve classes of people based on traits they can't change).
I am not arguing the letter of the law, I understand whats legal and whats not.
What I am arguing is that preventing someone from possesing a firearm at their place of residence is essentially nullifying the 2nd ammendment.
and that if you can deny certain aspects of constitutionally protected rights, you should be ok with violating them all.
-
I am not arguing the letter of the law, I understand whats legal and whats not.
What I am arguing is that preventing someone from possesing a firearm at their place of residence is essentially nullifying the 2nd ammendment.
and that if you can deny certain aspects of constitutionally protected rights, you should be ok with violating them all.
I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you're only persisting because you either don't understand what avxo wrote about distinguishing laws from constitutional rights or you just don't buy it.
Constitutional rights say what people can do without being interfered with by the government. Laws spell out what people can't do.
Given what avxo wrote, I think that it's legal for a private party on property he owns to prevent others (even tenants who reside there) from carrying guns there because there is no law against doing so. (This would seem to be the case with the guy who lived in the dorm.)
BTW, I imagine there are jurisdictions that have laws on the books saying that certain types of businesses cannot withhold service based on whether a citizen has a gun or not. In the absence of such laws, though, the private property owner can tell the gun folks to scram.
-
I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you're only persisting because you either don't understand what avxo wrote about distinguishing laws from constitutional rights or you just don't buy it.
Constitutional rights say what people can do without being interfered with by the government. Laws spell out what people can't do.
Given what avxo wrote, I think that it's legal for a private party on property he owns to prevent others (even tenants who reside there) from carrying guns there because there is no law against doing so. (This would seem to be the case with the guy who lived in the dorm.)
BTW, I imagine there are jurisdictions that have laws on the books saying that certain types of businesses cannot withhold service based on whether a citizen has a gun or not. In the absence of such laws, though, the private property owner can tell the gun folks to scram.
apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.
Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!
if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?
They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!
-
apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.
Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!
if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?
They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!
Dude, I know what you're saying and it does kind of suck but if a guy is just renting his home, it's not really his.
The actual owner can lawfully impose all kinds of restrictions (not just ones related to guns). Even restrictions that the government can't impose on someone who completely owns his residence.
-
apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.
Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!
if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?
They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!
As I explained, private individuals cannot violate another individuals constitutional rights. On top of that, I believe that property owners should be able to control how their property is used and how to run their business. So I would have no problem with a landlord prohibiting weapons on the property provided that such a limitation was clearly spelled out in the lease agreement. The refusal of a landlord to allow weapons on a property doesn't infringe on your Constitutional rights and, in my opinon, the argument that "it's their home" is vacuous.
But I could argue the issue both ways, really. Ultimately, the libertarian side of me simply puts if foot down and says: "a property owner should be able to refuse to rent his property to someone for any reason - including for no reason at all."
However, we live in the real world. And in the real word and under the current framework, there are several other factors to consider. First and foremost is the fact that an integral component - often only implied - of any lease is the covenant of enjoyment, which ensures that the tenant's possession of the property during the lease term is not automatically superseded by the landlord's ownership rights. So, while a homeowner retains title and rights to the property during the lease term, he is limited. For example, a landlord cannot consent to a search of the home by the police, especially against the tenant's wishes.
I won't venture a guess on how a Court would rule on the issue, but if the lease clearly says "no weapons are allowed on the premises" then I don't know how you side-step that without the Court striking that provision off.