Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2013, 19:30   #101
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
I'm not attacking anyone. You are far from the only person in this thread displaying a "But my opinion is the ONLY one that matters - I'm special" attitude.

Its simple. If a business posts a "No guns" or similar sign, then it should be fairly obvious they don't want guns on the property. Its a sad commentary on society that people feel a LAW should be in place before one must respect the wishes of others.
I am simply explaining my position. You are the one accusing my of violating the property owner's rights, and inferring that I am somehow a horrible person because I would ignore the sign.

Legally speaking they have no right until I am asked to leave that simple. Law and rights aside if they refuse to acknowledge my right to keep and bear arms why should I acknowledge their right to control who is on their property? Who says their right to control who is on their property is more important than my right to carry a firearm?

The answer I still acknowledge their right anyway when I leave upon their request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by actionshooter10 View Post
You continue to display your ignorance of what rights truly are.

I'll briefly explain it to you.

"Rights" are given to us by our creator, not by any other man.

The Constitution acknowledges some of those rights and protects those specific rights from government oppression.

The Constitution does not protect your rights from other individuals.

Your rights do not trump anyone else's rights...no matter how much you would like to think they do.

If a property owner expresses his wishes to you by an "informational" sign, you violate his rights to regulate what happens on his property when you don't respect his written wishes.

Laws don't protect "rights".

Laws are based on Judeo-Christian teaching and societal mores...not rights.

Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's immoral.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's moral.

Morality and the law are not neccessarily the same.

Hope this clears things up for you.
That makes an assumption of a creator, which is an assumption most people, and science disagree with. Rights are merely intrinsic, and relative to each person. The role of law is to create an absolute enforceable legal rights around a general consensus of the people.

morality is relative to each person, and who is to say your morality is any more right or wrong than mine? That's what we have the law for.

The law says they have no recourse until I am in the store and they ask me to leave. A sign is insufficient under state law in my state.

Therefore the property owner has no RIGHT to keep me off the property until the ask me to lave as confirmed (or restricted) by law, however you want to look at it. Thus I am not violating their rights.

Last edited by Ryan WA; 05-11-2013 at 19:36..
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 19:52   #102
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,207
Hard to see a distinction between some gun owners and most criminals.

Pity.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 20:07   #103
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,523
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Hard to see a distinction between some gun owners and most criminals.

Pity.
You mean the "It's only wrong if I get caught" mentality?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 20:15   #104
ChuteTheMall
HildabeastHater
 
ChuteTheMall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Anti-Obamaville
Posts: 59,912


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Hard to see a distinction between some gun owners and most criminals.

Pity.

Ditto with some cops.
ChuteTheMall is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 20:26   #105
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,523
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
Ditto with some cops.
Start your own thread in the appropriate forum, sir, if you really want to go down that path.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 05-11-2013 at 20:27..
RussP is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 20:27   #106
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
You mean the "It's only wrong if I get caught" mentality?
It's not wrong at all. It is in complete compliance with the law.
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 20:42   #107
bleumanchu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 19
I encountered this yesterday. In Georgia, these signs do not carry the weight of law. I took my car to a nearby business for routine maintenance, (and was certainly not leaving my pistol in the car). The sign was posted on the least used entrance to the business (not the main door), and easily missed though I happened to see it. Due to a relative time crunch, I opted not to follow my typical position of taking my car to a less discriminatory location. I carried concealed on their premises briefly to drop off and later pick up my car. While I agree that common courtesy might normally dictate I have gone elsewhere, the recent string of armed robberies nearby has left me feeling just fine about my decisions.
bleumanchu is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 21:04   #108
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
That makes an assumption of a creator, which is an assumption most people, and science disagree with. Rights are merely intrinsic, and relative to each person. The role of law is to create an absolute enforceable legal rights around a general consensus of the people.

morality is relative to each person, and who is to say your morality is any more right or wrong than mine? That's what we have the law for.

.
That has to be the most jumbled up line of reasoning I have seen in a long time and typical "moral relativism" of liberal though (even though some so-called "conservatives" have found it convenient to hide behind it)

If your "rights" were not believed to have been endowed by a creator then they exist only because of laws, in which case any law that takes them away is just as valid as the law that gave them to you.

Your sense of your "rights" exists because of the society that was created long before you were born, by people who believed the rights were inviolate because of their endowment by a creator. Sorry to break this to you but America is a Christian based society. Tough luck.

"General consensus of the people"? you have got to be kidding me. The Founders were afraid of that as a guiding principle and built a Republic, not a Democracy, to guard against tyranny by "general consensus".

Morality being relative with no right or wrong? Yah, so suicide bombings and honor killings aren't wrong because the people committing them don't think they are?


You are truly of the "make up the rules to suit myself" generation.
countrygun is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 21:19   #109
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
That has to be the most jumbled up line of reasoning I have seen in a long time and typical "moral relativism" of liberal though (even though some so-called "conservatives" have found it convenient to hide behind it)

If your "rights" were not believed to have been endowed by a creator then they exist only because of laws, in which case any law that takes them away is just as valid as the law that gave them to you.

Your sense of your "rights" exists because of the society that was created long before you were born, by people who believed the rights were inviolate because of their endowment by a creator. Sorry to break this to you but America is a Christian based society. Tough luck.

"General consensus of the people"? you have got to be kidding me. The Founders were afraid of that as a guiding principle and built a Republic, not a Democracy, to guard against tyranny by "general consensus".

Morality being relative with no right or wrong? Yah, so suicide bombings and honor killings aren't wrong because the people committing them don't think they are?


You are truly of the "make up the rules to suit myself" generation.
I don't have to make up the rules, that's already been done.

Our republic isn't much different than a democracy. The representatives are voted on by us to represent us. It's almost as good as just a direct vote but much easier to manage. Just look at how complicated voting for the representatives is. Could you imagine doing that for every proposed law?

Regardless of how you want to view rights either created by or restricted by the law. Fact is the law restricts (or sets) the rights of the property owner to only have the ability to ask me to leave once on the property, they can't just set a sign and forget it.
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 21:52   #110
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 280
Never mind, too much. It was an anecdote.

Last edited by brokenprism; 05-11-2013 at 22:18..
brokenprism is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 22:06   #111
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
I don't have to make up the rules, that's already been done.

Our republic isn't much different than a democracy. The representatives are voted on by us to represent us. It's almost as good as just a direct vote but much easier to manage. Just look at how complicated voting for the representatives is. Could you imagine doing that for every proposed law?

Regardless of how you want to view rights either created by or restricted by the law. Fact is the law restricts (or sets) the rights of the property owner to only have the ability to ask me to leave once on the property, they can't just set a sign and forget it.

Besides you being wrong I am getting rather tired of you moving the goalposts to try to get your point to count. (Yet another symptom of the corruption in this society)

If you see a sign on private property and ignore it, you are not respecting the rights of the property owner, you are just a child trying to have your own way.
countrygun is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 22:23   #112
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Besides you being wrong I am getting rather tired of you moving the goalposts to try to get your point to count. (Yet another symptom of the corruption in this society)

If you see a sign on private property and ignore it, you are not respecting the rights of the property owner, you are just a child trying to have your own way.
I don't know how many different ways I can say this so let me try the direct approach...

IT IS NOT VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS FOR ME TO WALK INTO THE STORE ARMED REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SIGN!

I've tried to explain this calmly, and professionally, and courteously. You are too dense to see anyone else's point of view that is contrary to yours though. You are incapable of admitting your wrong because somehow in your mind you are always right no matter what. Learn to have a constructive intelligent discussion.

Their rights are clearly DEFINED, CONFIRMED, RESTRICTED (how ever you want to word it) by the law. Their rights aren't violated until they ask me to leave and I refuse, which as I already said I would not refuse, thus their rights would NEVER be violated.

Last edited by Ryan WA; 05-11-2013 at 22:25..
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 22:45   #113
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
I don't know how many different ways I can say this so let me try the direct approach...

IT IS NOT VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS FOR ME TO WALK INTO THE STORE ARMED REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SIGN!

I've tried to explain this calmly, and professionally, and courteously. You are too dense to see anyone else's point of view that is contrary to yours though. You are incapable of admitting your wrong because somehow in your mind you are always right no matter what. Learn to have a constructive intelligent discussion.

Their rights are clearly DEFINED, CONFIRMED, RESTRICTED (how ever you want to word it) by the law. Their rights aren't violated until they ask me to leave and I refuse, which as I already said I would not refuse, thus their rights would NEVER be violated.
The fact that the owner chooses to print out his disapproval of your presence instead of voicing it is a meaningless distinction. In either case, you've ignored his desire for how his property is to be run, placing your preference above his. The fact that you won't honor a property owner's wishes unless there's some threat of a legal penalty is not a position to be proud of.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 23:37   #114
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
I don't know how many different ways I can say this so let me try the direct approach...

IT IS NOT VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS FOR ME TO WALK INTO THE STORE ARMED REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SIGN!

I've tried to explain this calmly, and professionally, and courteously. You are too dense to see anyone else's point of view that is contrary to yours though. You are incapable of admitting your wrong because somehow in your mind you are always right no matter what. Learn to have a constructive intelligent discussion.

Their rights are clearly DEFINED, CONFIRMED, RESTRICTED (how ever you want to word it) by the law. Their rights aren't violated until they ask me to leave and I refuse, which as I already said I would not refuse, thus their rights would NEVER be violated.
YES IT IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.

The fact that you don't recognize a property owners rights (unless you get caught) is a sad indictment of our value system.

One more time, go back and read the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights. See which document came first and see what rights the Second Amendment protects. Then discover which came first in the minds of the Founders.

If someone violates one of the primary rights (that of controlling one's property) while claiming to be exercising a later enumerated right needed for that control of property, (the right to bear arms) then that person is well short of understanding the words or the meaning of the Constitution. They are merely a quibbler trying to weasel around the facts to have their way, refusing to admit to the property owner's rights.

Your rights are protected from encroachment by the Government, but they stop at someone else's property line, where his rights begin. Not "Until I get caught"
countrygun is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 23:49   #115
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Any sign is meaningless, They have to actually ask me to leave. It's not about getting "caught" as you said. There's nothing to get caught doing. I am not doing anything wrong. If they disapprove to secure their rights to keep me off their property they have to SAY something. A sign is not sufficient thus there is no violation of rights. Why is it so hard to wrap your tiny brain around that FACT...oh wait I just answered my own question.

Last edited by Ryan WA; 05-12-2013 at 00:33..
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 23:54   #116
zbusdriver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: se michigan
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
The fact that the owner chooses to print out his disapproval of your presence instead of voicing it is a meaningless distinction. In either case, you've ignored his desire for how his property is to be run, placing your preference above his. The fact that you won't honor a property owner's wishes unless there's some threat of a legal penalty is not a position to be proud of.
I live in Michigan and I have NO legal requirement to stand at the door of a business for five minutes before entering to read through a multitude of signage... If I know that they are anti second amendment then I will most certainly take my business elsewhere. On occasion, I have taken the time before entering to see if they have any restrictions. To my surprise I have not ever seen ANY? If the business owner is adamant about no weapons then the no guns placard needs to be where I grab the handle to the door so that it is obvious...if not, too bad for them! And, by the way, your opinion of what I should and should not be proud of means nothing to me...
__________________
The day we lose our will to fight is the day we lose our freedom.

Last edited by zbusdriver; 05-12-2013 at 00:22..
zbusdriver is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 00:27   #117
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
Any sign is meaningless, They have to actually ask me to leave. It's not about getting "caught" as you said. There's nothing to get caught doing. I am not doing anything wrong. If they disapprove to secure their rights to keep me off their property they have to SAY something. A sign is not sufficient thus there is no violation of rights. Why is it so hard to wrap your tiny brain around that FACT...oh wait I just answered my own question.
You answer your own questions the way you like so you only get the answers you want.

That is rather obvious.

In my State if you ignore the sign the business owner can have you cited PERIOD. and if you get cited, you lose your CWP.

That has withstood challenges in Court, so I have reason to believe it is Constitutional.

That leaves the conclusion that it IS a violation of the property owners rights, just that different States may have different laws and standards of enforcement.


NO, you aren't "special". If I post my property "No Trespassing" I am under no obligation to prove you read the sign, only that the sign was up before I had you arrested.

You are trying to make a case for parking on a businesses lawn and saying "I didn't see a sign that said I couldn't, but if they ask me nice, I'll move it"
countrygun is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 00:34   #118
Ryan WA
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You answer your own questions the way you like so you only get the answers you want.

That is rather obvious.

In my State if you ignore the sign the business owner can have you cited PERIOD. and if you get cited, you lose your CWP.

That has withstood challenges in Court, so I have reason to believe it is Constitutional.

That leaves the conclusion that it IS a violation of the property owners rights, just that different States may have different laws and standards of enforcement.


NO, you aren't "special". If I post my property "No Trespassing" I am under no obligation to prove you read the sign, only that the sign was up before I had you arrested.

You are trying to make a case for parking on a businesses lawn and saying "I didn't see a sign that said I couldn't, but if they ask me nice, I'll move it"
It passed in court meaning the law giving force to the sign is constitutional, doesn't mean every state needs to have such a law.

I am not violating their rights if they have no executed their rights as required by state law. State law here says to execute their property owner rights to keep me off their property that have to ask me to leave, a sign in no asking me to leave no matter what is says. If they put the sign up but don't enforce it and I go onto their property with a firearm how am I violating their rights if I am not exercising them?

That's like saying since the state is violating my 2nd amendment right by restricting me from conceal carrying when I have no attempted to exercise my right to the extent required by law by applying for the permit.

The ball is in their court to exercise their right, if they exercise it then I will abide by their wishes thus avoiding violating their rights.

The law says it has to be verbal, not a sign. Why? Signs can be missed, not understood for example if I could not read English, or may not even be visible it it somehow got covered up. That's why states that do give force of law to no gun signs have strict requirements the sign must follow to be valid. Not my fault Washington avoids that by saying to exercise their right they have to verbally ask me to leave.

Simply put... I CANNOT violate a right they are not executing as prescribed by law.

Last edited by Ryan WA; 05-12-2013 at 00:35..
Ryan WA is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:10   #119
Ryobi
SummertimeRules
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,421
You are doing something wrong, and you know you are. You just think that pretending otherwise makes it okay. Oops! Did I do that? Next up:Shoplifting- They Didn't Tell Me In Person That It Wasn't A Free Sample.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan WA View Post
Any sign is meaningless, They have to actually ask me to leave. It's not about getting "caught" as you said. There's nothing to get caught doing. I am not doing anything wrong. If they disapprove to secure their rights to keep me off their property they have to SAY something. A sign is not sufficient thus there is no violation of rights. Why is it so hard to wrap your tiny brain around that FACT...oh wait I just answered my own question.
Ryobi is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:12   #120
AXaxiom
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 35
Two opposing views, more than likely in most cases separated by the width of a Cross

Last edited by AXaxiom; 05-12-2013 at 05:37..
AXaxiom is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 705
216 Members
489 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31