No Guns Allowed signs showing up

[me812]

imported post

Did I say anything to imply that I would disagree with you on that?

You said:

I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

I was simply explaining to you one reason why they should.

 

[JesseL]

imported post

me812 wrote:

Did I say anything to imply that I would disagree with you on that?

You said:

I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

I was simply explaining to you one reason why they should.

I also said they shouldn't gain any extra rights (under which I would include immunity from liability). I just think that corporations should be legally treated as the voluntary pool of individuals that they are. No more, no less.

 

[TOF]

imported post

me812 wrote:

I would never argue that corporations should have more rights than any of their individual shareholders (who are people with legal rights), but I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

Ever hear of limited liability? Basically, what people like TOF want is for the government to give them immunity against lawsuits while at the same time keeping all their rights. They want to socialize liability while keeping assets private. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to maintain your rights, then you can be a big boy and assume all the risks and responsibilities that go along with those rights. This means not incorporating and maintaining sole proprietorship.

You have no idea what TOF wants. You are simply another of the many that think it is their way or the highway. When you grow up and understand things from a broader perspective I might be willing to discuss things further but for now it is a waste of time.

Have a nice day.

 

[me812]

imported post

I just think that corporations should be legally treated as the voluntary pool of individuals that they are. No more, no less.

If limited liability were done away with, I might possibly agree. But under limited liability, corporations are not just a voluntary pool of individuals.

 

[JesseL]

imported post

me812 wrote:

I just think that corporations should be legally treated as the voluntary pool of individuals that they are. No more, no less.

If limited liability were done away with, I might possibly agree.

That's the way I'd prefer to see things go.

It seems to me that it's always better to fix a broken system by addressing what's wrong with it than to break something else about it.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I think the point being made is that People have rights, and the Corporation is an entity that was created by the government, granted many rights and privileges that even people don't have, and a lot of thinking people wonder how and where the government dreamed up the authority to create immunity for business that it then uses to impose restrictions upon the populace that it would not otherwise have the ability to impose.

Creation of the Corporation Entity is an evil that few people recognize. It isn't about the money. It is about a supposedly private entity that functions as an invasive arm of government into aspects of economy and the individual. Incorporation is the tool by which government crosses many lines it would not otherwise be able to.

 

[DMGNUT]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Kildars wrote:

DMGNUT wrote:

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

I think that is the whole point. They don't respect his 2A, so he doesn't respect them.

I can relate and agree. People who don't think I have the right to live, don't get any respect from me either. Anti-carry is just like saying "I hope you die, but be sure to give me your money first."

Ixtow, thank you for your support. I think you put into words perfectly, what it is that I feel. If an entity has no respect for my 2nd amendment rights, I feel no obligation torespect their property rights. I also agree completely with your thoughts on corporate law, and how itso dismissively hands over undeserved authority.

I would like for just a moment however,to revisitmy own comment from above, on religion (understanding and acceptingof course, that some here may have different beliefs). I feel that God was instrumental in creating this country. Allowing for its freedom of religionand allowing for us to live as free people and exercise our agency. All of this not withstanding, I believe my right to defend myself, comes not from my government, but instead from God.As I mentioned in my first post, I therefore consider it immoral to ask me to set aside what God has given us all, for a law made by mere men. Obviously I will not be carrying in a government building or other "secure" location , but as for everywhere else... I care not a wit for the owner's (be it a corporation or an individual), politically incorrect attempt to control my morally correct actions.

And by the way, thank you to everyone who took the time to post their views. Very interesting how many are willing to surrender their God given (and 2nd Amendment) rights, just because someone else disagrees with them. Given enough time and enough rampant liberalism, and if you conceded not to carry, when and where asked not to carry, you would eventually end up just standing in your own front yard... with no where else to go.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

me812 wrote:

Corporations own property and with owning property you get the right to control said property.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Please cite.

You have a very twisted view of property rights. Whether it's an individual, or a coporation (who is run by individuals) that owns that property is completely irrelevant. The property is still OWNED and it's not owned by the public, they manage it, pay taxes on it so they decide what happens.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

DMGNUT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Kildars wrote:

DMGNUT wrote:

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

I think that is the whole point. They don't respect his 2A, so he doesn't respect them.

I can relate and agree. People who don't think I have the right to live, don't get any respect from me either. Anti-carry is just like saying "I hope you die, but be sure to give me your money first."

Ixtow, thank you for your support. I think you put into words perfectly, what it is that I feel. If an entity has no respect for my 2nd amendment rights, I feel no obligation torespect their property rights. I also agree completely with your thoughts on corporate law, and how itso dismissively hands over undeserved authority.

I would like for just a moment however,to revisitmy own comment from above, on religion (understanding and acceptingof course, that some here may have different beliefs). I feel that God was instrumental in creating this country. Allowing for its freedom of religionand allowing for us to live as free people and exercise our agency. All of this not withstanding, I believe my right to defend myself, comes not from my government, but instead from God.As I mentioned in my first post, I therefore consider it immoral to ask me to set aside what God has given us all, for a law made by mere men. Obviously I will not be carrying in a government building or other "secure" location , but as for everywhere else... I care not a wit for the owner's (be it a corporation or an individual), politically incorrect attempt to control my morally correct actions.

And by the way, thank you to everyone who took the time to post their views.

I am a Catholic, just want to put that out there. However, my morals are not the law. What you believe in will not stop you from getting trespassed and/or arrested. His property rights trump your 2A rights because the 2A is a limitation on government not private parties.

God also gave people the right to own property. Why is that not immoral to dismiss?

 

[protector84]

imported post

Here's a compromise to that situation: Private property reserves the right to prohibit weapons on its property by those who frequent it. However, any property that chooses to do so must also be liable for your safety at all times while on the property. If say a McDonald's is posted "No Weapons" then if some nutcase comes in there and kills 20 people, then the McDonald's would have to pay say $10 million per customer killed and $1 million per customer injured. They stillhave the right to prohibit weapons but with that freedom comes liability responsibility. I bet if some law like that was passed, the signs would quickly come down. I believe in freedom but that doesn't mean that freedom shouldn't come with responsibilities and consequences.

 

[DMGNUT]

imported post

Trespass and arrest are such harsh words... ouch. Sorry, not trying to be rude, just seeing humor where maybe I shouldn't.

For what its worth, I don't ever really expect anyone to ask me to leave their place of business, as they are more concerned with political correctness, and how their sheep customers are feeling, than whether or not someone is stepping over their company rules or policies. People only see what they want, or expect, to see. I don't expect they will ever see (or know) that I'm carrying. If however they do, they are required by law to ask me to leave (as I may have missed even their most obvious sign) at which time I would gladly comply.

I find it very interesting how many people are willing to surrender their God given (and 2nd Amendment) rights, just because someone else disagrees with them. Given enough time and enough rampant liberalism, and if you conceded not to carry, when and where asked not to carry, you would eventually end up just standing in your own front yard... with no where else to go.

 

[DMGNUT]

imported post

Protector, I like your compromise, but no amount of money can replace my loved ones (or an other innocent by stander who I might be able to protect).

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I think the real difference here lies in the root of a corporation. The Corporation is an entity created by the Government to give shelter and immunity to those who wish to conduct business in a less than responsible manner. Asside from the turn of our society towards 'sue everyone,' there was never a reason for the existence of the Corporation Entity, save the Government's desire to use business to cross lines it would not otherwise be able to cross.

I don't think that the root issue here is property rights of an Individual vs that of a Corporation. I think the issue is with the government dreaming up the authority to create an entity with no accountability with which to manipulate the populace. I can easily see, and agree with, those who feel that an entity fabricated under false authority should not have the same rights as a legitimate human being.

It is what it is. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable than any other form of gun-control or usurpation of freedom.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

DMGNUT wrote:

Trespass and arrest are such harsh words... ouch. Sorry, not trying to be rude, just seeing humor where maybe I shouldn't.

For what its worth, I don't ever really expect anyone to ask me to leave their place of business, as they are more concerned with political correctness, and how their sheep customers are feeling, than whether or not someone is stepping over their company rules or policies. People only see what they want, or expect, to see. I don't expect they will ever see (or know) that I'm carrying. If however they do, they are required by law to ask me to leave (as I may have missed even their most obvious sign) at which time I would gladly comply.

I find it very interesting how many people are willing to surrender their God given (and 2nd Amendment) rights, just because someone else disagrees with them. Given enough time and enough rampant liberalism, and if you conceded not to carry, when and where asked not to carry, you would eventually end up just standing in your own front yard... with no where else to go.

If the place of business chooses to restrict firearms, you place yourself at risk by choosing to go onto the property. If the property is not doing something illegal, they should not held liable for your choice.

I find it interesting you're willing to dismiss other peoples god given right for a perceive right that you think you have. You have the right to defend yourself, but you do not have a right to violate other peoples rights to do that. I'm sure you would not appreciate it if you were anti-gun and someone carried on your property and said "its my god given right."

 

[DMGNUT]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

DMGNUT wrote:

Trespass and arrest are such harsh words... ouch. Sorry, not trying to be rude, just seeing humor where maybe I shouldn't.

For what its worth, I don't ever really expect anyone to ask me to leave their place of business, as they are more concerned with political correctness, and how their sheep customers are feeling, than whether or not someone is stepping over their company rules or policies. People only see what they want, or expect, to see. I don't expect they will ever see (or know) that I'm carrying. If however they do, they are required by law to ask me to leave (as I may have missed even their most obvious sign) at which time I would gladly comply.

I find it very interesting how many people are willing to surrender their God given (and 2nd Amendment) rights, just because someone else disagrees with them. Given enough time and enough rampant liberalism, and if you conceded not to carry, when and where asked not to carry, you would eventually end up just standing in your own front yard... with no where else to go.

If the place of business chooses to restrict firearms, you place yourself at risk by choosing to go onto the property. If the property is not doing something illegal, they should not held liable for your choice.

I find it interesting you're willing to dismiss other peoples god given right for a perceive right that you think you have. You have the right to defend yourself, but you do not have a right to violate other peoples rights to do that. I'm sure you would not appreciate it if you were anti-gun and someone carried on your property and said "its my god given right."

How do I place myself at risk by going onto their property? I really don’t follow your statement. Unless you simply don’t understand the law, which clearly states I must be verbally asked to leave and then refuse to do so, before I could be arrested. As I already pointed out, it’s unlikely they (or anyone) will know I’m carrying, but if they somehow noticed and asked me to go, I would. Are you reading all of my posts, or just excerpts? I’m dismissing other people’s God given right? Their right to what… to be sheep and stand around waiting to be victimized? And you say my being armed, somehow violates other peoples right to be armed, when they are the ones who have chosen not to be?

Wow. You have totally lost me.

I still find it very perplexing and illogical that one would defend so vehemently, someone else’s “right” (?) to ask me not to be armed. That you would give so completely, someone else the say-so, on whether or not I can be prepared to defend myself, anywhere in this country. This is clearly and indisputably liberal thinking. The 2[suP]nd[/suP] amendment does not apply to only bits and pieces of our great land… in only the parts of our country where liberals (or you) say it's OK.At no time does my being prepared to defend myself, compromise or otherwisetrampleanyone else's rights. You're saying I have to give up my right, for someone else's idea of political correctness.If that is what you are saying...I say bullocks to that.

If only people who think that way would wear a sign,then when I'm in a business that declares "no weapons", I can turn a blind eye to the criminals beating senseless, those who would prefer I were unarmed.

 

[lostone1413]

imported post

Can everyone together say "No Guns Allowed" in Spanish means "Concealed Carry" I for one unless I'd have to walk through a metal detector will always be armed!!!!! If you can be made when you conceal you don't know how to conceal

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

lostone1413 wrote:

Can everyone together say "No Guns Allowed" in Spanish means "Concealed Carry" I for one unless I'd have to walk through a metal detector will always be armed!!!!! If you can be made when you conceal you don't know how to conceal

Why is everyone fervently pro breaking the law?

I find it interesting that many here will openly break the law and carry in an area where it is OBVIOUS they do not want guns, but then cry and whine when someone anti-gun oversteps their bounds.

If there is a place with a "no guns allowed" sign, I DON'T SHOP THERE, or I suck it up and shop there with my gun not on my person.

 

[me812]

imported post

If there is a place with a "no guns allowed" sign, I DON'T SHOP THERE,

So what happens when every store is posted "no guns" and there's nowhere to shop that doesn't have these signs? What do you do then: starve to death for lack of food?

Those who think I'm being unrealistic with this scenario should remember the history of workplace drug testing in this country. about 25 years ago, when a few companies started drug testing, all these laissez-faire types said it was no big deal, because you could just go to work someplace else if you objected. Well, here we are, 25 years later, and there's practically no place you can work anymore that doesn't piss test. If you expect to have a decent standard of living in this country, you pretty much have to have some creep watch you piss in a cup.

The fact that the same people who would talk of pitchforks and torches when the government would disarm them would happily allow corporate robber barons to do the same thing to them absolutely boggles my mind. When are you people going to wake up and see that corporations are not private property, but in fact are nothing but malign tentacles of the same government that you rightfully fear?

 

[TOF]

imported post

me812 wrote:

If there is a place with a "no guns allowed" sign, I DON'T SHOP THERE,

So what happens when every store is posted "no guns" and there's nowhere to shop that doesn't have these signs? What do you do then: starve to death for lack of food?

Those who think I'm being unrealistic with this scenario should remember the history of workplace drug testing in this country. about 25 years ago, when a few companies started drug testing, all these laissez-faire types said it was no big deal, because you could just go to work someplace else if you objected. Well, here we are, 25 years later, and there's practically no place you can work anymore that doesn't piss test. If you expect to have a decent standard of living in this country, you pretty much have to have some creep watch you piss in a cup.

The fact that the same people who would talk of pitchforks and torches when the government would disarm them would happily allow corporate robber barons to do the same thing to them absolutely boggles my mind. When are you people going to wake up and see that corporations are not private property, but in fact are nothing but malign tentacles of the same government that you rightfully fear?

You must be an Obama supporter. He and his followers are doing everything in their power to destroy Corporate America. If they do you should be able to use your drugs with impunity.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Private property is 'Private Property'. The owner or Corporate owner and/or agents have the Right to forbid most anything or activitywithin' or on a private premise... 'same as you do within your own house or property. If you can 'sneak in' concealed... then you're violating the property owners rights by doing so. Some places prohibit all sorts of things... (animals, motor vehicles, smoking, food, or being shirtless 'n shoeless... evenpersons under a certain age). If you don't like their peaches... don't shake their tree.