strickj

My Dad and I were discussing (reads bitching) gas prices today. 3.14 when I filled up over the weekend. I miss the days of putting a dollar in my motorcycle and having enough to last for the entire week. We both agreed that gas prices will hit 5.00 per gallon by this time next year... which is what the former press. of Shell said back in December. With that, I thought I could make a little contest out of it. At what point do you think gas will hit the 5.00 mark(nat.avg)? Winner will receive a jar of Vaseline.

Do you own a business? If so, then you do not have the right to write rules like that.

Robert: Camel snuff! Unalienable right to enjoy your property. Remember that? No it isn't a different discussion. It is the same thing we're discussing here but with a different item. Just answer the question. Just answer the question. So, you do not have a right to have a gun on someone's property... but you want that right?

Yes, we talked about the redecorating this morning before we watched the movies.

The **** has been getting deep around here past couple of weeks so I thought I would change it up a bit for us with a story of my day.... and ultimately the ridicule I'm opening myself upto... This morning, the 14th , and for much of the day, I was forced to stay home and just sit back in the bed and watch movies. I thought that today was gonna be a great day until I opened the Blockbuster bag and saw that the movies chosen for us were all three of the Twilight movies. With much resistance, I agreed to watch them with the hopes of what would later come. After watching all three, I must say, that they weren't as bad as I thought that they would be. I'll even go as far as saying that the third one was actually pretty good. I just hope that this doesn't mean that I now have to get myself a pink carry gun like Dralarms! Yes, I enjoyed them and I'm man enough to admit it. That is all.

Not true. It happens every single day. You can see this first hand at Hooters, strip clubs, advertisements, magazines, and even tv and in movies. It is very legal and very ethical if such trait is dependent of the completion of the job. It may not happen often where you work, but it does in a lot of other fields.

I have a hard time understanding how you claim that a property owner does not have that right. I have proven that they do. Several times in fact. You can see this right in action by visiting a movie theater with outside food in your hand. Or by visiting Punisher's hospital while raising a ruckus. And like I have stated, you have rules that you have to follow on your property, too. Does that mean that you can not write rules for your guest to follow while visiting? Sure, but that does not make it right. The government can make a law saying that movie theaters can not bar outside food and drink. Would that be right?The government can make a law saying that you can not bar trespassers on your property. Would that be right? There are lot's of business that ban employees from having cell phones anywhere on the property because of security reasons. Would it be right if the government made a law saying that an employer can not ban cell phones? If you do not have a right to be on a business' property then how do you have a right to have a gun on their property?

Yes, Robert, business owners must follow laws and regs for their property. But, as I have stated many times now, so do you. That in no way means that the government can keep you from your natural right to enjoy your property. I'll say this one last time and then I'm out as I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over. You do not have a right to be on someone's property. You do not have the right to work anywhere. You do not have the right to park your car in someone's driveway. You do not have the right to carry any item onto someone's property. A property owner does have the right to tell you to leave. A property owner does have the right to write the rules of use for his property(commercial, residential or even intellectual property even). A business owner does have the right to fire you (or hire you) for anything they durn well please. That alone makes this entire bill a moot one anyway. Even if passed, your employer can fire you for anything else that they want to.

I suppose my last post addressing this was last somewhere way back, so, I'll bring it up again. EEOC, or discriminatory laws, are federal laws to keep people from being discriminated against for who they are (race, sex,etc) and in some cases, for devices that they need (seeing eye dogs, chairs,etc). You can not compare something that you want to carry to something that you are. You can not discriminate against someone when it's a conditional term of usage and X can be changed or removed. You can see this fist hand at restaurants and places of employment with dress codes. Even so, EEOC laws are not absolute rules for business to abide by. I, myself, even hire people based on those 'protections' regularly. Age, sex, weight, sexual attributes... It is completely legal and ethical because those are conditions of them fulfilling their employment with me. EEOC does not give someone the right to be hired, or to even be on someone's property.

Sorry, incorrect. The legislative does not give people the unalienable right to enjoy their property. That is why it is called "unalienable rights", or "natural rights". No. That is not a privilege. You can not take someone's property without due process. No, that's not a right and that's not a privilege. A cop shooting you outside of self defense is a crime the same as with citizens. That one is correct. By that logic, your guns can be taken away from you simply because the only reason you can even own guns is because of a legislative act. And some people seem to confuse "rights" with privileges granted by property owners.

Yes, you are providing proof that land can be taken with due process when 'landlocked'. It does NOT prove that you have the right to be on someone's property. You can even ask Punisher what happens when people tell him that they have a right to be at his hospital. He will tell you that people that say that will leave in pretty bracelets. Are you serious? The Declaration of Independence doesn't matter? But, the constitution does? Do you know why the 2nd was written?See Robert's posts for why it is. Really? Again?Well, how about this part:

What difference does it make if the intruder has a HCP or not? If you are in your home, it does not matter if you have one or not. The HCP for for carrying a gun outside your home. For inside your home, you are covered by TN's Castle Doctrine.

Squash snot! Unalienable Rights ...for one source. I posted that when you asked for it the first time. Want more, see here. As for property rights being more important then an individual's rights, well, that is a given and all being that you do not have the right to be on anyone's property. That by default means that their rights supersedes yours. The old saying "your rights end begin where mine begin" applies here. Not to even mention that your HCP does not give you the absolute right to carry on private property. None. That's how business can post et'al. So, you have no right to be on another's property and you have no right to carry on another's property. That's 2-0 if you're counting. If you wanna count your unalienable right to personal security, that would be 2-1... but you don't need a gun for personal protection, remember, so it's not included in the score since this bill is about carrying a gun. The reason I asked was to show you that businesses can impose dress codes. You dress wrong, then you can be fired. Nothing you can do about that, either. Same applies to dining at a restaurant with a dress code for customers.Not that EEOC is an absolute rule for businesses, but no part of that will even cover non-assistant items such as clothes (or guns, for that matter). When have I said that? I have not said once that a business owner can do whatever he want's. I have said repeatedly that a property owner has every right to write the rules for use of his property. I have also said repeatedly that we all have rules imposed on us by the government to abide by. Even you and I have rules imposed on us to follow in our own homes. Does that mean that we do not have the right to enjoy our property? Heck no it doesn't.So, please prove that a property owner has no right to make rules for use of his property by visitors. I have proved to you twice now that everyone has the unalienable right to the full enjoyment of his property. That includes making rules for their guest to follow while there. In ending, you need to prove that a property owner does not have the unalienable right to enjoyment of property. I've already proved my side of this one, twice. It's your turn to prove yours. And for the big one, you will need to prove that you have a right to another person's property. Any ole' right at all will do.

AHHH! :Pulls hair out: Again, just because we all have rules to follow, that does not mean that a property owner can not regulate rules for usage of his property. You have rules to follow for your home that are imposed by the government.... does that mean that you can not give me rules for when I visit? Unalienable rights are what we all have. As I have proved to all, that includes enjoying your property. If writing rules is what it takes for you to enjoy your property, then so be it. That is your right. I take it that your job does not have a dress code (suit and tie, or even a company embroidered logo on a polo, maybe)? Never been to a fancy restaurant? Your kids do not go to school? True-dat. But, we do have the power to persuade our elected officials, and if they fail us, we can take their jobs away.

Do you know what the constitution means? It is a document that protects your rights from being taken away by the government. It in no way extends your gun ownership rights to carrying a gun on private property. Oh, and I, in no way, make exceptions to rules. Anti-discriminatory laws do not express rights because of a disability, race, religion, etc, either.

Certainly. I do not agree with, nor wish to be disarmed because of an employer. That does not mean that I will force my wishes onto someone's property when I have no right to be there. I'm sorry, but you obviously have no knowledge about medicine. Until recent decades, people with disabilities never survived past their injury. If they did survive, they laid in a bed until they died. And obviously, trying to convey the difference between gun rights and a disability is like trying to describe a barrel shroud to the CA senate.

Worriedman's: I never claimed that. I said an owner can dictate rules but we all have laws and regs. to abide by. Your home has rules, codes, and laws to abide by too.... does that mean that you can not make rules for visitors? Clothing is an item. Just like a gun. A business owner has every right regulate those items. Does your job have a dress code? Ever been to a nice restaurant with a dress code?Ohshoot: Those laws do not give me a right to another's property. I still have to abide by their rules inorder to gain access to their property. The reason anti-discriminatory laws are in place is to protect people from being denied X because of who they are. Not what items they carry. Comparing the two is night and day. Maybe you all do not understand that, but as someone that has been denied X because of both a gun and a disability, I can tell you there is a huge difference. A really huge difference. Again, one is an item. A tool. Something that can be easily removed. The other is who a person is. Something that can not be changed or removed. Remember, you can take your gun off to go to work. I can not take my chair off.

I agree with the portion that I added the bold emphasis to. For the other part, please see my other post. Please do not turn this into an EEOC debate. From someone who has been denied access and employment because of disability and has also been turned away for carrying a gun, I can tell you that those two things are not even close to being in the same category. One is a simple object. The other a part of you. Something that you can not change. It is something that can not be removed, or covered up.

Oh, and please do not turn this into another EEOC debate. That is like comparing and apple to a water buffalo. A gun is an object. A disability, sex, religion, etc. are things that can not be taken off or removed and are all therefore regulated with federal anti-discriminatory laws. HB0355 is about forcing a property owner to allow an object onto his property. It would be like forcing a movie theater to allow a BigMac in. Comparing the two is very offending.

Yes, I admitted that we all have rules, laws, safety regs, codes,etc. to live by. But no where in any of those does it say that a business can't make rules and terms of use for it's property. Still waiting on proof that a business is not private property and it's owner is not allowed to write those rules. If you need help, PM Punisher. He will tell you how many people he has sent away wearing pretty little bracelets that said the same thing that your are.

Umm... again, someone please prove to me that a bushiness is not private property. Someone, anyone, please prove to me that a business owner does not have the right to make rules to the usage to their property. That is all you will need to do to shut me up.

You have absolutely no rights to be on someone else's property. None. I challenge you (again) to provide proof that you do have a right to others' property. aI can invite you to come on my property all I want. That does not give you the right to stay. If I tell you to leave, you have to leave. If I tell you not to wear purple and pink polka-dotted socks, then you can not wear pink and purple polka-dotted socks. If you go into a business and do not buy anything, then they can tell you to leave. Again, property owners can dictate the rules of use. it's as simple as that. Umm... no? I have never said that. What I am saying is that I am not going to force someone else to do what I do. It is not any of my business to tell you how to run your home or your business. Stay out of mine, I'll stay out of yours... That's all I'm saying.

Now, that's something you don't see everyday on a gun board. More government nanny control? Who'd thunk! Thing is, the person such rules affects does not have any right to be on that property. None. Zero. Zilch. If you are unhappy with the rules that may jeopardize your safety, then the answer is as simple of leaving the property. Removing a property owner's rights, while advancing perceived rights that you do not have, is never a good the answer.

Makes about as much sense as the government making laws forbidding property owners from doing that, eh?

No, I'm not. That argument is just not valid. As I said earlier, we all have rules and regs that we must follow. Those rules and laws are determined by structure type and use. Here on strick's land, the law says that I must have my ramp elevated to a certain % per every foot. The law says that there must be a hand rail on my front porch because it is above so many feet from the ground. The law say's that I can not have a meth lab in my kitchen. Even though there are laws that say that I must abide by those standards does not mean that I can not make rules for visitors to follow.