Vehicle searches

[Petro_58]

Isn't it funny how the government enforces RIGHTS in such a hap-hazard manner. A business can't refuse to employ you for being black, asian, female, gay etc... but they can trample your right ro keep and bear arms and apparently they can curtail your right to free speech as well.

jawjawdawg - I find it interesting that you flatly state that your "preferences" are more important than my "rights". That's the fine reasoning that we are living with today. I guess we just all need to make adjustments so as not to ride roughshod over anyones "preferences".

Line up and turn in your guns boys...the liberals PREFER we be unarmed, our rights notwithstanding.

As for business providing adequate security, well, that's the victims creed isn't it? "Protect me for I cannot protect myself." I'd prefer(theres that word again) to be PROactive and FORCE people to respect our RIGHTS than to beg them to protect me and compensate me if they fail to.

No your not talking Rights, your talking Laws, BIG difference. There is no Constitional Right that say's you have THE Right to Infringe on Others Rights. If so please Publish it for reading as I have never seen it. There is no Constitional Right governing who you can or cannot hire, There are Laws however. Private Property is just what it States Private. Owners can state whatever Rules they want as long as they are Not Contrary to the LAW of the land. If I don't want Santa in my house he don't get to come in. It don't matter if he want's in or not. My property my rule na na na na nana! If Santa works for me and I have written rules that say no reindeer on my property, then guess what he better have some magic elves to pull that sleigh to work! My Property MY Rules!
No different then If I work for you and you have a Policy of a uniform, I show up with no uniform, Guess what I'm FIRED. Your property, your rule, I'm Fired.

 

[drtybykr]

http://www.lp.org/platform

Statement of Principles

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade - for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Just saying.

 

[Petro_58]

+1 ^^^^

 

[Patronus]

Ummm..ok, So since santy claus aint specifically written into the consitituion I surely can't argue with you there. There is no right to leave your uniform at home in the bill of rights.

The right to "keep and bear arms" is specifically written into the constitution(Bill of Rights), so I believe it IS a right. I'm not taking my gun out of it's holster to run into a convenience store to pay for some gas or to go into WalMart. If I come to your house and you tell me you are afraid of me carrying my gun then I will respect your wishes and leave, never to return. If I'm in your business I would do likewise. Now, if you are so afraid of legal gun ownership, I wonder-what the heck are ya doin here? Or is it that people are afraid of everyone having a gun EXCEPT them? That's the kind of compromise that leads to gun control. Take HIS gun, not mine.

until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

My point exactly. Keeping and bearing is my RIGHT.

I'm not a foaming at the mouth nutjob...mostly. I am just saying that the constitution sets out the right to keep and bear, the state of Georgia recognizes it and we all support it...So whats up with the "I can have a gun but you can't crap? Your property, fine, but OUR country, OUR constitution and OUR rights. I have to say, I think it's moral cowardice to claim to support a right that in practice you are afraid of the practicle application of.

Owners can state whatever Rules they want as long as they are Not Contrary to the LAW of the land.

The constitution IS the law of the land and it says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Note that it doesn't even limit the infringement to the goverenment. I read that to mean that the rights shall not be infringed by ANYONE. Of course since so many people agree with the limitations businesses want to put on us, I guess what I think doesn't much matter. Oh, one other "law of the land" is the little ole 4th ammendments protection against unlawful search and siezure(which goes back to the original thread). Since we have to aquiesce to those in order to get a job as well, why don't we just toss the whole damn constituion in the trash?

I know what I think isn't going to change the law or the (i think) unconstitutional practices employers exercise under the guise or private property protections, but I'm still entitled to think it.

 

[jawjadawg]

Wow. You have missed a crucial concept of our system of government. The Constitution is there to protect us from the Government, NOT to provide you the right to just do whatever you want against the wishes of a private citizen on their private property, The Constitution says a whole bunch of things. Taken out of context you could argue the Constitution is worthless because it constantly contradicts itself by leaving so many topics open for interpretation - that is, if you are going to continue interpreting everything with a lack of common sense, and an inherent lack of respect for other people's rights and property. The Constitution also says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Think for a moment what has been accomplished by liberals with that little sentence. I think it is safe to say that you are not only mistaken with your interpretation, but also that a majority of people would see your point of view as a bit extreme.

 

[Patronus]

I think I'm about at the end of "civil discourse" with you jawjaw. If I'm so lacking in "common sense" then just try ignoring me as I'm about to do you.

There is zero interpretation involved in reading black and white.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." any compromise to that in order to appease people who don't trust thier fellow citizens with weapons is unacceptable. Do I have the ability to change it? Not directly but I VOTE. Do I have the right to believe as I do? Damn skippy. Now if you want to get into a name calling, mental ability disparaging contest, well ordinarily I'd oblige but frankly, you just aren't worth the effort. I can read and I respect the rights of others to be armed. Clearly you, on the other hand, are afraid when other people exercises thier legal right to be armed.

 

[bid9394]

You got it. Schools are "gun free zones" and yet school shootings do happen. Now if teachers could carry guns.... They would not happen as often and the death toll would be a lot less

Funny how the BGs seem to be drawn to our "safe" 'gun free zones' whenever they decide they want to start a massacre... they know that THEY are the ones who will be safe...

 

[jawjadawg]

I think I'm about at the end of "civil discourse" with you jawjaw. If I'm so lacking in "common sense" then just try ignoring me as I'm about to do you.

There is zero interpretation involved in reading black and white.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." any compromise to that in order to appease people who don't trust thier fellow citizens with weapons is unacceptable. Do I have the ability to change it? Not directly but I VOTE. Do I have the right to believe as I do? Damn skippy. Now if you want to get into a name calling, mental ability disparaging contest, well ordinarily I'd oblige but frankly, you just aren't worth the effort. I can read and I respect the rights of others to be armed. Clearly you, on the other hand, are afraid when other people exercises thier legal right to be armed.

Your approach is typically liberal - you fire off the first subtle insinuation about a person's character and then you cry foul when the response is to point out an astonishing lack of reading and comprehension. Then you ignore the points presented and repeat the same inane argument while insulting again by implying cowardice.

The larger problem, and the reason this conversation can go no further, is that you insist on being intellectually dishonest. Cut and paste from the Constitution. One sided interpretation of the english language. Etc. This is pointless. In the words of Quintas, "People should know when they are conquered(defeated)."

 

[Patronus]

Moron. You call me liberal even though it is YOU who maintains a liberals position on limiting the right to carry.

Your personal rights do not supercede my rights as the owner of the business, property, etc. You do not have the the right to use one of your rights to run roughshod over my property or preferences. This is similar to the idea that the alleged "right to healthcare" would allow someone to force another person to devote a portion of their life to serve the rights of another individual. Totally off topic, but if we are going to allow that type of thing then we might as well resort back to slavery.

and yes, if you are injured on someone else's property because they failed to provide adequate security then you will be able to recover damages in the courts. This is not my opinion. It happens every day.

LOL...aw hell, this is indeed pointless. Wasting time debating a pos who sounds more and more like SPIKE with every twisted post is just annoying. Read his crap as you will. If you disagree with him he will twist everything you say just as he has with me.

I apologize to all others for not taking this to the Political forum and ask that any moderator feel free to delete my posts here. While you're at it, how bout checking the ISP and see if SPIKE is double-dipping LOL!

 

[jawjadawg]

Moron. You call me liberal even though it is YOU who maintains a liberals position on limiting the right to carry.



LOL...aw hell, this is indeed pointless. Wasting time debating a pos who sounds more and more like SPIKE with every twisted post is just annoying. Read his crap as you will. If you disagree with him he will twist everything you say just as he has with me.

I apologize to all others for not taking this to the Political forum and ask that any moderator feel free to delete my posts here. While you're at it, how bout checking the ISP and see if SPIKE is double-dipping LOL!

Haha...See what I mean? More insults while avoiding the topic. I will take your request to delete the evidence as an admission that you have lost the debate. Thank you, sir. I feel certain we can let this die, and I will even grant you one more response just you can feel like you got the last word. I am confident you won't finish with anything demanding a thoughtful response. I'm out.