Free Republic

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.

Can our society prohibit all guns?

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910792/posts

Or drugs?

Guns don't belong on campus with frat boys any more than they belong with drunken cowboys in Abilene and Dodge City and as far as I am concerned that is completely in line with Security of a free state.

Thank you for parroting Ms Brady's line, billyboy.

If you reaallyh need a gun to feel safe at college then you need to go to a different college.

If you reaallyh need to prohibit guns to feel safe at college then you need to go to a different college. Try one in England.

Self government defines freedom.
Each instance of the govenrment telling a citizen what they can or cannot read, eat, drink, grow or possess is another encroachment on individual freedom.
Eagle Eye

Roscoe:
And our self-governing American people, through our republican systems of representative government, have rejected your asinine contention that legalized dope is the true measure of freedom.

Our 'representatives' in government have rejected our Constitutions limits on powers to make the asinine contention that prohibiting dope is the true measure of freedom.

Poor confused roscoe and his morality police buddies can't even understand our republican form of government.

You cannot refute:

It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.

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?

Amusing claim you make:

"-- There are no future facts. --"

It is a fact that in the future:

"-- the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides. --"

Kbennkc:
The tyranny of the mob --
-- mentality is alive and present right here on FR...
CSM

Correct. -- We have all seen posts like the below from men who claim conservative credentials, while they argue that our US Constitution was not intended to protect our individual rights from state or local government infringements.

These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to do [whatever], so be it. -- If and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.

--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.

Go Bill go:

Wyatt Earp and Wild Bill Hickock (I suppose they were liberal wusses) realized that drunken cowboys and guns in town do not mix.

Gotta love that gollywood version of gun control rationalization Bill.

So they told them to park there guns when they come into Dodge City or Abilene. The rate of shooting deaths plainly lessened and that was a good reason it was plainly not petty or specious.

Were the other good citizens of Dodge also disarmed bill? How did Wyatt and Wild Bill address concealed arms? Did they strip search the cowpokes?

That there are places where guns should not go is clear and obvious to 90% of us including most Conservative Republicans.

I don't see you as speaking for conservatives, or even Rinos, bill.

Guns don't belong on campus with frat boys any more than they belong with drunken cowboys in Abilene and Dodge City and as far as I am concerned that is completely in line with Security of a free state.

Thank you for parroting Ms Brady's line.

It is correctly stated that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it.

It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic.

If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent.

Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds]

Amusing claim you make:

The logical mistake that Hume makes and the logical positivists continue to make is forgetting (or never knowing) facts are either historical or present.
"-- There are no future facts. --"

Is it not a 'fact' that in the future the square of 3 [9], -- added to the square of 4 [16], -- will always equal the square of 5 [25] --?

The 14th reiterated/clarified the concept that no person could be deprived of life, liberty or property, [guns are property] without due process of [constitutional] law.

In essence, our rights to own and carry arms should not be infringed for petty or specious reasons. -- The security of free States depend upon an armed citizenry.

As Justice Harlan recognized:

     "-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . ."

Bilhosty claims:

-- in most places carrying concealed weapons on your person is banned --

Bill, -- calm yourself and realize that most states now have 'shall issue' concealed carry laws.

Carrying concealed "ought to be" restricted to those with a "good reason"? -- Give this some thought.
-- Our Constitution specifies we should carry arms as it is "necessary to the security of a free State --".

Can you agree with that concept being a "good reason"?

El Gato:
The first and second amendments, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, apply only to government actions, not to those of private entities, or individuals. That is while they protect individual rights, they only protect them from governmental infringement.

That said, there does exist a portion of the US Code which makes deprivation of rights a crime.
#205

Prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, it was erroneously contended that the Bill of Rights, applied only to federal government actions, not to those of State, local gov't [or to private organizations and individuals].
The 14th reiterated/clarified the concept that no person could be deprived of life, liberty or property, [guns are property] without due process of [constitutional] law.

The portion of the US Code which makes deprivation of rights a crime clarifies this issue even further, to include violations by private organizations and/or individuals.

In essence, our rights to own and carry arms should not be infringed for petty or specious reasons. -- The security of free States depend upon an armed citizenry.

The bottom line is presented as, -- if the Supremes make a ruling, it's a 'law'.

Mysterio:
Well, then, let's just dissolve the government and let the Supreme Court conjure any law we need from the Constitution!
A justice cannot remove or add a specifically stated Constitutional right or prohibition just by waving his or her hand. And those who try to do so should be immediately impeached and barred from the bench.
If you want to do something the Constitution prohibits, you have to amend.

Well put, but here's the deal. In my review of the past 50 or so posts, our citing of cases, quotes, the constitution, posting links, etc. has been totally wasted.

It's sorry, but while a 6-year-old could understand the case against an undelegated power to prohibit, the morality police mentality can not.

Well done.

--unless you can demonstrate a good reason why you need one.
And if that is not the way it is it ought to be. And that is especially true for a college campus.

Good grief bill. -- Carrying concealed "ought to be" restricted to those with a "good reason"?
-- Give this some thought. -- Our Constitution specifies we should carry arms as it is "necessary to the security of a free State --".

Can you agree with that concept being a "good reason"?

There is no absolute Constitutional right.

Unable to answer the question bill? How amusing.

Even the first amendment which comes nearest to it is not absolute.
-- you certainly do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun on campus.

Gotta love your example of "good reasoning".

Actually I am quite calm and smiling as I write this. I kind of enjoy a good mix up every once and awhile with my Freeper friends.

With 'friends' like you kid, FReepers find a lot to smile about. You may even find some openly laughing at your reasoning.

It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.

Since when does the Constitution apply to private property owners?

Our "supreme Law of the Land" [and all laws made in "Pursuance thereof"] apply to everyone in the USA, and always have since ratification. Read the Article VI.

So the moonbats are justified to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine under your logic.

Only moonbats claim that "fairness doctrine" is made in "Pursuance thereof".

You don't seem to realize that the constitution is between the government and its citizens, not citizens between citizens.
It's the government that can't restrict your rights, not private citizens.

Yep, that's what 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.

An owner of any private property has the right to decide if they do or do not want people carrying concealed firearms on that property. I'm not taking about gun grabbers in office, but between private people.
A private property owner can prohibit firearms on their property

Why would you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?

The benefits or drawbacks of conceal and carry are not the issue here.

Of course they are. You just don't want to discuss your reasons for why you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon.

And a private property owner is not depriving anyone of the right to conceal and carry.

Wrong. -- It's become a virtual 'brady bunch fad'. Large corporations, insurance companies, etc; - are jumping on the 'ban guns for workplace safety' bandwagon.. -- And some FReepers are buying into the scam.

He is simply excercising his right to control what is on his property. If the owner, for whatever reason, choses not to have firearms on his property, it is not a violation of the constitution or any other law.
-- don't you believe in private property rights?

Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.
Obviously, you don't agree.

--- it is still up to the property owner to decide who and what goes on his property.

Read much? Just above I agreed that certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason. -- But, - you must admit that our Constitution defends our right to carry arms for the "security of a free State".

How can we carry arms during our daily business if private property owners ban them?

There are no access rights laws for concealed weapons carried by private citizens on other citizen's private property and that isn't a 2nd amendment issue.

Dream on. The brady bunch gun banners are making it their agenda to deny access for concealed carry.

-- in most places carrying concealed weapons on your person is banned --

Bill, -- calm yourself and realize that most states now have 'shall issue' concealed carry laws.

unless you can demonstrate a good reason why you need one.

Wrong again. - No reason is needed in most states.

And if that is not the way it is it ought to be. And that is especially true for a college campus.

Carrying concealed "ought to be" restricted to those with a "good reason"? -- Give this some thought. -- Our Constitution specifies we should carry arms as it is "necessary to the security of a free State --".

Can you agree with that concept being a "good reason"?

It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.

Since when does the Constitution apply to private property owners?

Our "supreme Law of the Land" [and all laws made in "Pursuence thereof"] apply to everyone in the USA, and always have since ratification. Read the Article VI.

It's the government that can't restrict your rights, not private citizens.

Yep, that's what 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.

A private property owner can prohibit firearms on their property

Why would you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?

-- don't you believe in private property rights?

Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.

You don't agree?

vikingd00d:
On what grounds?

ST:
On the ground that he paid the tuition and they accepted it, presumably without a disclaimer saying it was at risk if he harbored unapproved political views.

It is the public policy of the United States, and the State of Minnesota that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.

Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.

Or guns...

You should know who whined to the mods and got my 'don' persona suspended.
Feel proud?