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

To: taxcontrol
I would have no objection to your approach, but in this particular case the "current approach" is actually sound on principle.

A person has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right can easily be abrogated on a VOLUNTARY basis when that person agrees to enter a certain premises where firearms are not allowed.

The operator of a sports arena, for example, does not violate anyone's constitutional rights when it refuses to allow fans to carry firearms inside. Anyone who doesn't want to meet those requirements is free to stay away.

This is EXACTLY why the Founders of this country had no illusions about extending all the rights of citizenship to everyone who could breathe on a mirror. If you didn't own property, you were considered a second-class citizen. Period.

26 posted on 03/17/2018 11:12:39 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

My objection is not with the property owner setting the requirement. I believe this is a valid and legit exercises of the 1st amendment freedom to assemble. However, the left also wants to have “public accommodation laws” that prevent the owner from exercising such rights and forces them owner to rent or sell to someone against their wishes.

My frustration is with the liberal mindset of having it both ways.


31 posted on 03/17/2018 12:47:55 PM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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