• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
It's worse:

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/03/facebook-manipulation-experime.html


Since EMNSeattle and Primus take two slots, that leaves 18 other 'online identities' available.
Most people on this states sub forum know my identity and that I really exist as an individual person. Amazi, been to no less then 20 events, call into radio shows on this issue multiple times, testified before the senate L&J committee, been in person to Olympia to speak with my state reps on gun issues, and collected 60 signatures for 591. And you think I'm a sock created by the Feds? Sounds to me like paranoia.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
The tax on tea ended up being cheaper for the British citizens living in the Americas than in England. The colonist didn't say hey we are winning let's compromise on other issues. They went all out and they won. The price of tea had little to do with at that point.

To me liberties are liberties are liberties. I am a button pusher I am all out. I will not compromise liberty to play a game in a pretense of winning. If we all adopt the same attitude we will, like the common man in the 18th century win.
 

cpgrad08

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
183
Location
Lakewood, WA
Yes they are victims of tyranny. Obviously, the only reason they are carrying long guns is because that is the only option affair fed them by a tyrannical government. It matters not if you think it unwise to do something especially when it comes to exercising a right. If it's ok to suppress one right then it's ok to suppress all of them.

And in case you didn't know the constitution wasn't written to keep government from violating our rights. It was to show the government how to protect our rights and secure them.

Read the Declaration of Independence and it will tell you exactly why they created this government. A private entity doesn't have the right to violate any persons right unless there is a law being broken.

Yes the government has strayed VERY far from the initial purpose it was created for.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
Sorry, but your personal rights do not override a person's property rights. Also the Constitution only limits what the government can do about guns. If I wanted to banned in my home I have every right to do so. It sucks when private business ban guns or ask for no guns in their stores but they have the legal right to do so.
 

cpgrad08

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
183
Location
Lakewood, WA
Most people on this states sub forum know my identity and that I really exist as an individual person. Amazi, been to no less then 20 events, call into radio shows on this issue multiple times, testified before the senate L&J committee, been in person to Olympia to speak with my state reps on gun issues, and collected 60 signatures for 591. And you think I'm a sock created by the Feds? Sounds to me like paranoia.
EMN is a real person, and if not I have been talking to myself in the cigar lounge...again. :lol:
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,057
Location
Lawton, OK USA
A business has every right to say "we" are not welcome. I'm good with that, as long as they understand I will take my business elsewhere. Two can play that game. I can also vouch for ENM being real, and that is what scares me :)
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Sorry, but your personal rights do not override a person's property rights. Also the Constitution only limits what the government can do about guns. If I wanted to banned in my home I have every right to do so. It sucks when private business ban guns or ask for no guns in their stores but they have the legal right to do so.
Our government is a corporation. Besides with the corporations buying 'elected' officials, how do you tell the difference between the government and a 'private' corporation anymore? Please, introduce me to a corporation sometime and then we can talk about it having rights or not.

A business has every right to say "we" are not welcome. I'm good with that, as long as they understand I will take my business elsewhere. Two can play that game. I can also vouch for ENM being real, and that is what scares me :)
I, too, know that ENMSeattle is a real person. He is the just about the same in person as online.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
Sorry, but your personal rights do not override a person's property rights. Also the Constitution only limits what the government can do about guns. If I wanted to banned in my home I have every right to do so. It sucks when private business ban guns or ask for no guns in their stores but they have the legal right to do so.
Sure, you have the right to own property. That's what property rights are. That doesn't mean that you can infringe on a guests rights. You don't get to make up whatever rules you want. Sure some have decided that it's acceptable to disregard some rights (2a). Try telling a person in a wheelchair that they can't bring their chair into your business and convince them you aren't violating their rights. Or maybe don't hire a person because they're black...
I could go on and on. Just owning property does not give you rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. The only reason businesses can discriminate based on our choice of self defense is because we put up with it.
 

cpgrad08

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
183
Location
Lakewood, WA
Sure, you have the right to own property. That's what property rights are. That doesn't mean that you can infringe on a guests rights. You don't get to make up whatever rules you want. Sure some have decided that it's acceptable to disregard some rights (2a). Try telling a person in a wheelchair that they can't bring their chair into your business and convince them you aren't violating their rights. Or maybe don't hire a person because they're black...
I could go on and on. Just owning property does not give you rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. The only reason businesses can discriminate based on our choice of self defense is because we put up with it.
Nope, If I own the property I can make whatever rules I want on who or what can be their. The Constitution only puts restrictions on the government not people or private business. It would be a true violations if people they are forced to go their. If they come on their own free will. It is not a violation or going to make the argument that most employers are violating the 2nd Amendment by not allowing their employees to can a firearm at work?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
EMN is a real person, and if not I have been talking to myself in the cigar lounge...again. :lol:
I, too, know that ENMSeattle is a real person. He is the just about the same in person as online.
No sense of humor. I guess [/sarcasm] tags are required (but that article about .gov manipulation of online forums is real btw)

Most people on this states sub forum know my identity and that I really exist as an individual person.
Of course you're a real human, you just might not be a high quality example of a human.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Nope, If I own the property I can make whatever rules I want on who or what can be their. The Constitution only puts restrictions on the government not people or private business. It would be a true violations if people they are forced to go their. If they come on their own free will.
Ahh, your argument seems to endorse "Blacks only" drinking fountains.

IDK about that. If someone is a racist and wants to install whites only drinking fountain in their living room, they surely have that Right. It's private property.

If someone wants to open a private social club, where only paying members are allowed, and then install a whites only drinking fountain, they surely have that Right. It's private property.

If someone wants to open a public store, and invite the 'general public' into it, they might just lose most of their 'private property' argument for that whites only drinking fountain.

Racism is bad, m'kay. The above is just an example of your logic applied to race, instead of firearms.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Sure, you have the right to own property. That's what property rights are. That doesn't mean that you can infringe on a guests rights. You don't get to make up whatever rules you want. Sure some have decided that it's acceptable to disregard some rights (2a). Try telling a person in a wheelchair that they can't bring their chair into your business and convince them you aren't violating their rights. Or maybe don't hire a person because they're black...
I could go on and on. Just owning property does not give you rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. The only reason businesses can discriminate based on our choice of self defense is because we put up with it.
Those rights are not constitutional rights, they're regulatory privileges....
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Ahh, your argument seems to endorse "Blacks only" drinking fountains.

IDK about that. If someone is a racist and wants to install whites only drinking fountain in their living room, they surely have that Right. It's private property.

If someone wants to open a private social club, where only paying members are allowed, and then install a whites only drinking fountain, they surely have that Right. It's private property.

If someone wants to open a public store, and invite the 'general public' into it, they might just lose most of their 'private property' argument for that whites only drinking fountain.

Racism is bad, m'kay. The above is just an example of your logic applied to race, instead of firearms.
And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. Most people wouldn't otherwise spend the money to make that many sets of everything.

If the government installs the drinking fountain, it belongs to the public, if a private business installs one they should be able to set whatever rules they want,....
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. Most people wouldn't otherwise spend the money to make that many sets of everything.

If the government installs the drinking fountain, it belongs to the public, if a private business installs one they should be able to set whatever rules they want,....
Well, they are providing it for public use, in a public space they created for licensed commerce.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. Most people wouldn't otherwise spend the money to make that many sets of everything.
Son, you are talking right out your ass.

Erik, a bit of unsolicited advice: stop demonstrating your sheer ignorance. This claim is even more contemptible than your offensive attempt at talking gangsta the other day. You're rushing headlong toward Glenn Beck levels of arrogant incompetence.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Son, you are talking right out your ass.

Erik, a bit of unsolicited advice: stop demonstrating your sheer ignorance. This claim is even more contemptible than your offensive attempt at talking gangsta the other day. You're rushing headlong toward Glenn Beck levels of arrogant incompetence.
He's so entertaining though ;)
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Son, you are talking right out your ass.

Erik, a bit of unsolicited advice: stop demonstrating your sheer ignorance. This claim is even more contemptible than your offensive attempt at talking gangsta the other day. You're rushing headlong toward Glenn Beck levels of arrogant incompetence.
Sheer ignorance, so you deny that segregation in the south was mandated by the state governments? You are the one displaying ignorance if you contest that.

In alabama for instance, the state could fine railroad conductors if they permitted blacks to be in the same rail car as whites, nurses could lose their license if they were white and worked on a black male, public parks were required by law to have separate sections, this is historically verifiable. Segregation primarily occurred because the government mandated it. You refute that using facts.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Wow, look at what 5 seconds of google brings....

Something pretty much resembling what I'm saying, state mandates private entity provide segregation that they didn't otherwise want to do, but that's much harder then just lashing out isn't it?

image.jpg

I think you owe an apology for that last comment of yours....... I'll grant you the gangsta talk, but claiming I pulled the last comment out of my ass is clearly false
 
Top