Are our rights under attack?

[Floyd Eye]

other than government interactions where it is prohibited by infringement, I go where my 2A rights are respected.


there's a bar here on the island I used to frequent, it's a great place to meet tourist women. the owner put up a sign, as is her right, "no guns allowed", so I stopped going. Several months later, after I stopped going, the bar owner saw me and asked how I was doing, it's been awhile, you should stop by the bar again; I told her I wasn't going back because she banned guns from her bar, and that I only go where 2A right is respected. She was clearly surprised by my answer, but the conversation ended there.

There are plenty of establishments on the island that don't deny 2A rights, I found better places to go.

Absolutely the correct way to go about it. I will respect someone’s right to not allow concealed weapons on their property. By not going there.

There’s a little store out on the highway near here. Overpriced groceries and shit because it’s quite away to a town with regular stores, but they have an excellent meat department. Anyway, several years ago I walked up to the door and there was a “ No firearms “ sign. I walked in and went up to the owner and politely told him I would no longer be patronizing him because of the sign and I left. Maybe a year or so later my wife needed something and I was being forced to go to that store. When I got there I noticed there was no sign, but there was an NRA sticker on the front glass. I can only assume that I was not the only person to quit patronizing them. Small town out in the sticks in a dark red county in a dark red state, you’d think they would have known better.

 

[Floyd Eye]

As already mentioned, technically she is not infringing on your rights. It’s more that you think she has a different political view, which is unfortunate. I hate to see folks cutting ties over ideology.

Not infringing but he is quite accurate when he said not respecting.

 

[rsm]

As already mentioned, technically she is not infringing on your rights. It’s more that you think she has a different political view, which is unfortunate. I hate to see folks cutting ties over ideology.

she has a right to ban firearms on her property; I have a right not to participate and support her business. I didn't say she was infringing, only the government can, and is, infringing, on my 2A right. I thought that distinction was clear in my post?

 

[Bad Brain]

Not infringing but he is quite accurate when he said not respecting.

Fair enough. I see it more like someone asking you to take off your shoes when you go in their house. But it is a public space and it’s not like they’re assuring you of your safety. Kinda sounded like it’s more about politics though.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Well Dan, I hate to keep beating this horse, but what you are actually doing is the same thing liberals always do. Take a situation out of context, make several misleading accusations that you think is some sort of a “ gotcha”, but actually is an example of you having little or no knowledge of the actual subject and attempting to paint anyone who isn’t “ outraged” as a hypocrite or an extremist.

In simple terms. Things the government does that make it harder for citizens to exercise their rights are bad. Particularly when it has no realistic benefit to society even though they claim that’s the point. The secret service not allowing firearms at a venue where a president is speaking doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. A venue not allowing firearms inside THEIR property doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. The government making it illegal to carry a gun in public spaces does.

Make sense to your addled, gender confused melon ? ?

Wtf are you going in about now lol. I admit the OP was snarky, but my questions to you were based on things you said to me and nothing else.
You told me that private property doesn’t have to follow 2A, and also that it was the secret service that enforced the ban.

So unless it was being held at the secret services private property, it is confusing to me why you are perfectly fine with this happening?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

she has a right to ban firearms on her property; I have a right not to participate and support her business. I didn't say she was infringing, only the government can, and is, infringing, on my 2A right. I thought that distinction was clear in my post?

So why is the secret service banning guns at a private event not infringement?

 

[Bad Brain]

He also mentioned the venue itself.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Fair enough. I see it more like someone asking you to take off your shoes when you go in their house. But it is a public space and it’s not like they’re assuring you of your safety. Kinda sounded like it’s more about politics though.

Only in so far as you consider natural, constitutionally protected rights politically partisan.
I mean would a black guy not patronizing a store owned by Robert Byrd be considered political ?

 

[Floyd Eye]

So why is the secret service banning guns at a private event not infringement?

Jesus Coleen, you bored ?

The president is there. It’s not unreasonable.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Jesus Coleen, you bored ?

The president is there. It’s not unreasonable.

Ex president,
But yes I agree it’s not unreasonable. But it doesn’t answer my question

 

[Bad Brain]

Jesus Coleen, you bored ?

The president is there. It’s not unreasonable.

Shop owner thinks it’s reasonable too.

 

[rsm]

So why is the secret service banning guns at a private event not infringement?

that is government infringement, but given recent events it's understandable precaution, both can be true at the same time.

the fact the event is on private property is immaterial since it's a government managed event; I'm sure getting insurance for the event would be cost prohibitive as well if firearms were permitted. so government events not allowing firearms is still a 2A infringement; every time. irrespective of any reasons for doing so.

perhaps not practical but they could have a bulletproof area around Trump, etc.

like I said, interactions with the government infringe on our 2A rights. always.

 

[Bad Brain]

I mean would a black guy not patronizing a store owned by Robert Byrd be considered political ?

Yeah, but understandable. Point taken, but not sure they are comparable.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

that is government infringement, but given recent events it's understandable precaution, both can be true at the same time.

the fact the event is on private property is immaterial since it's a government managed event; I'm sure getting insurance for the event would be cost prohibitive as well if firearms were permitted. so government events not allowing firearms is still a 2A infringement; every time. irrespective of any reasons for doing so.

perhaps not practical but they could have a bulletproof area around Trump, etc.

like I said, interactions with the government infringe on our 2A rights. always.

Seems counterintuitive, but thank you

 

[Bad Brain]

What it does Dan is make them look hypocritical. I mean, dems certainly wouldn’t ban trans folks from a convention.

 

[rsm]

Seems counterintuitive, but thank you

well because both can be true. we have a 2A right that does not have any restrictions on location; therefore, any restriction due to location is an infringement.

the government restricts locations where 2A is allowed; that is an infringement. irrespective of their reasoning. Same thing for airports; and if I want to fly, I have to comply with the infringement, and they do offer a process to travel with firearms.

I have no choice to avoid some government interactions where my 2A right is infringed;

however, in everyday activities I do have a choice in where I go; and if I have a choice to support a business that supports 2A vs one that does not, I will choose the former

 

[Dan Gleesak]

What it does Dan is make them look hypocritical. I mean, dems certainly wouldn’t ban trans folks from a convention.

I was thinking hypocritical in the sense that their mantra is that the public being armed will help stop crime.
Unless they think there is a possibility of someone actually getting shot apparently.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

“gun bans don’t work”

But also let’s ban guns just for tonight to keep things safe

 

[rsm]

I was thinking hypocritical in the sense that their mantra is that the public being armed will help stop crime.
Unless they think there is a possibility of someone actually getting shot apparently.

well a political rally will attract all kinds of people, and we've already seen it happen; it's not some random public gathering like a county fair.

I can see the precautions for a political event being necessary, but they are still an infringement, so I'll pass attending in person.

that said, at any event that does not allow firearms, the law abiding citizens will either not go or will comply; it does nothing to deter criminals or political terrorists from bringing firearms.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

“gun bans don’t work”

But also let’s ban guns just for tonight to keep things safe

The secret service will still be armed though, for safety