Are our rights under attack?

[rsm]

The secret service will still be armed though, for safety

let's hope the DEI hires are not present

 

[Bad Brain]

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

Would you order carry out from a restaurant that banned guns?

 

[rsm]

Would you order carry out from a restaurant that banned guns?

wouldn't be my first choice, but if there are no other options sure. for work, I have to go to places that prohibit firearms that I would not go to otherwise. There's always a compromise, doesn't mean I agree with it; and once I retire, that won't be an issue.

now, let's make it more universal; say that restaurant for carry out had owners that want to ban free speech, or supported having sharia law, what would you do? Hey, best kabobs in town!

 

[Floyd Eye]

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.

“gun bans don’t work”

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

Now, that post I made earlier that you asked what I was going on about ? THIS is what I was going on about. From the first post I already knew this was your goal.

Like I said, predictable democrat misdirection and bullshit. The analogy between a president speaking in a closed venue and regular people in public places on an average day is an apples to oranges comparison. And again, the NRA didn’t make the rule. The government did.

At a regular NRA convention firearms are not prohibited ordinarily.

And statistics and history has already proven that armed citizens prevent crime.

 

[Bad Brain]

At a regular NRA convention firearms are not prohibited ordinarily.

And statistics and history has already proven that armed citizens prevent crime.

But you see the tension right? I will say though, banning guns from a controlled environment is likely to be an effective measure. Outlawing guns from society ensures that only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Floyd Eye]

But you see the tension right? I will say though, banning guns from a controlled environment is likely to be an effective measure. Outlawing guns from society ensures that only outlaws will have guns.

Tension ? Dude it’s simple misdirection. An armed cadre of trained government security experts isn’t walking around with Joe Normal on his way home from work at 11 PM.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Now, that post I made earlier that you asked what I was going on about ? THIS is what I was going on about. From the first post I already knew this was your goal.

Like I said, predictable democrat misdirection and bullshit. The analogy between a president speaking in a closed venue and regular people in public places on an average day is an apples to oranges comparison. And again, the NRA didn’t make the rule. The government did.

At a regular NRA convention firearms are not prohibited ordinarily.

And statistics and history has already proven that armed citizens prevent crime.

Nope nope nope

 

[Floyd Eye]

Nope nope nope

Like I said, Coleen Ferry is too dim to understand most normal conversation.

 

[Bad Brain]

Tension ? Dude it’s simple misdirection. An armed cadre of trained government security experts isn’t walking around with Joe Normal on his way home from work at 11 PM.

What do you mean?

 

[rsm]

But you see the tension right? I will say though, banning guns from a controlled environment is likely to be an effective measure. Outlawing guns from society ensures that only outlaws will have guns.

but even in those controlled environments, criminals and terrorists will attempt, and often succeed, in getting firearms in the event.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Like I said, Coleen Ferry is too dim to understand most normal conversation.

Tap dancing already?

YOU are the one that brought up private property. And YOU are the one that said it’s the secret service that is banning the guns.
So I am asking YOU why that matters if the private property does not belong to the secret service

 

[Bad Brain]

but even in those controlled environments, criminals and terrorists will attempt, and often succeed, in getting firearms in the event.

Fine, but I don’t think anyone would argue the risk isn’t reduced. If it’s in fact a wash then let everyone have guns to save the optics.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

But you see the tension right? I will say though, banning guns from a controlled environment is likely to be an effective measure. Outlawing guns from society ensures that only outlaws will have guns.

That what is so fascinating to me. It’s obvious why it is a good idea to ban guns at a Trump rally.
The tension is that the reasoning behind why it’s a good idea could easily be placed in a multitude of other scenarios, that would presumably create a chorus of “unconstitutional infringement!”.

 

[rsm]

Fine, but I don’t think anyone would argue the risk isn’t reduced. If it’s in fact a wash then let everyone have guns to save the optics.

like I said, we can justify infringements but that justification doesn't change the fact that it is still an infringement. that's my only point.

that said, for the most part we can choose to avoid places that infringe on our 2A rights, public and private; however we can't avoid all. I have to go to DMV, I have to go to probate court to renew my weapons permit, I may have to go to a bank, etc. in daily life...but 2A is still being infringed.

 

[rsm]

That what is so fascinating to me. It’s obvious why it is a good idea to ban guns at a Trump rally.
The tension is that the reasoning behind why it’s a good idea could easily be placed in a multitude of other scenarios, that would presumably create a chorus of “unconstitutional infringement!”.

both can be true: 2A infringement and ban guns at Trump rally for safety.

then again, criminals and terrorists will still ignore the ban (infringement).

 

[Bad Brain]

like I said, we can justify infringements but that justification doesn't change the fact that it is still an infringement. that's my only point.

that said, for the most part we can choose to avoid places that infringe on our 2A rights, public and private; however we can't avoid all. I have to go to DMV, I have to go to probate court to renew my weapons permit, I may have to go to a bank, etc. in daily life...but 2A is still being infringed.

I thought we decided these weren’t “infringements”

 

[rsm]

I thought we decided these weren’t “infringements”

I didn't. I said both can be true.

2A does not restrict location; to restrict location is a 2A infringement. it should be basic.


some of the worst infringements are under the guise of "common sense gun laws"

 

[Bad Brain]

I didn't. I said both can be true.

2A does not restrict location; to restrict location is a 2A infringement. it should be basic.


some of the worst infringements are under the guise of "common sense gun laws"

Location involves private property though — I thought we had determined that constitutes a lack of respect, not infringement. “Common sense” laws are another matter.

 

[rsm]

Location involves private property though — I thought we had determined that constitutes a lack of respect, not infringement.

only government can infringe on Constitutional rights. that said, 2A says nothing about location, public or private property. so private property rights are at odds with 2A rights, or so it would appear.

private property owners have a right to choose - is actually not accurate. My Constitutional rights do not end when I am on someone else's private property. the owner can ask me to leave, or trespass me, but they can't deny my Constitutional rights on their property. Same if I exercise my 1A rights on their property.

that local bar owner that banned guns in her bar, I respected her choice, but my 2A rights are not void because I am on her property. If I wanted to push the issue, I could go to her bar armed. she can't deny my Constitutional rights; my Constitutional rights don't end because I am on her property. her attempt to deny my Constitutional rights is just that.

I choose not to go where my 2A right is infringed or denied, public or private. However in the case of private property, I have no obligation to surrender my Constitutional rights.

To differentiate, private property owners can attempt to deny my Constitutional rights, I have no right to be on their property but if I am on their property they can't deny my Constitutional rights, all they can do is ask me to leave or trespass me if I refuse. The police won't arrest me for exercising my 2A rights, only for trespass.

whereas on public (government) property, it is indeed an infringement of my 2A right if the government denies that right on public property.

while only government can infringe on Constitutional rights; private property owners can deny my Constitutional rights but I am under no obligation to surrender my Constitutional rights because I am on their private property.

 

[Floyd Eye]

That what is so fascinating to me. It’s obvious why it is a good idea to ban guns at a Trump rally.
The tension is that the reasoning behind why it’s a good idea could easily be placed in a multitude of other scenarios, that would presumably create a chorus of “unconstitutional infringement!”.

Well really it’s just another example of you proving me right by doing and saying exactly what a typical libtard would do and say, while pretending you are centrist.