Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dpa5923
Property rights do not trump civil rights, but your civil rights do not grant you or anyone else the right to trepass....
174 posted on 10/13/2007 11:42:20 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]


To: dpa5923
The Brady bunch types want everyone in the USA to believe; - that property rights trump our right to carry arms.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.

I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.

Why do you say it is "protecting conservative interests" to ban concealed carry on your property?

Because it respects property rights

Guns are property. Banning the carrying of them is respect?

and does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Dream on, ms brady.

Your lame attempt to claim that I cannot refuse you entry on my land because you are armed, have short hair, wear glasses or anyother reason does not fly.

Your lame attempt to claim that I said you cannot refuse me entry to your home because I'm armed, -- is belied by my previous posts.

Property rights do not trump civil rights, but your civil rights do not grant you or anyone else the right to trepass....

You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. Your objection to it on that basis makes you the fool, not me.

The rights listed in the first 10 amendments are not an end all list nor are they the most important to many people. Rather our founding fathers included them because they were rights most often infringed upon by the crown.

Our rights to life, liberty or property [guns] pretty well list them all. And whether it is you or gov't who try to infringe on them is also pretty immaterial.

Your position that a property owner cannot control who enters their property and on what conditions does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.

Your position that a property owner has absolute control over the life, liberty, or property of anyone who enters their property for any reason does not stand up to even rudimentary Constitutional scrutiny.

176 posted on 10/13/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson