Are our rights under attack?

[Dan Gleesak]

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.

Asking someone to explain what they mean is a left thing now?

 

[Floyd Eye]

What do you mean?

I mean every situation isn’t the same. A presidential speaking engagement is an entirely different scenario than anything a normal, pro gun person is fighting for their right to defend themselves in. Dan likes to try to stretch shit to compare to each other. It’s a common MO for him.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Asking someone to explain what they mean is a left thing now?

No but that isn’t what you’re doing is it Dan ? You are working on one of your circles. Sadly you are too stupid to realize how transparent you are. Poor Dim Dan.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

No but that isn’t what you’re doing is it Dan ? You are working on one of your circles. Sadly you are too stupid to realize how transparent you are. Poor Dim Dan.

It is exactly what I am doing. I am repeating things you said to me in succession and asking what the correlation between them is

 

[Floyd Eye]

It is exactly what I am doing. I am repeating things you said to me in succession and asking what the correlation between them is

Incorrect. You are talking in circles trying to get me to agree with some ridiculous analogy that’s only relevant in your child like brain.

 

[Bad Brain]

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.

I don't think the 2nd amendment is at odds with private property rights. First, the bill of rights applies to the government. Second, it's a more technical distinction, but I agree that a private property owner can't restrict your right to carry a gun, which is also fundamentally a private property right. But they can limit who comes onto their property, which might include those carrying a gun.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Incorrect. You are talking in circles trying to get me to agree with some ridiculous analogy that’s only relevant in your child like brain.

It was YOUR analogy lol.


This is that perfect joke full circle thing I was talking about

 

[Bad Brain]

I mean every situation isn’t the same. A presidential speaking engagement is an entirely different scenario than anything a normal, pro gun person is fighting for their right to defend themselves in. Dan likes to try to stretch shit to compare to each other. It’s a common MO for him.

But the problem is that the principles that guns keep us safer and that gun rights are sacrosanct are violated by the people who support them.

 

[rsm]

I don't think the 2nd amendment is at odds with private property rights. First, the bill of rights applies to the government. Second, it's a more technical distinction, but I agree that a private property owner can't restrict your right to carry a gun, which is also fundamentally a private property right. But they can limit who comes onto their property, which might include those carrying a gun.

exactly. a property owner's property rights do not negate anyone's Constitutional rights; all a property owner can do is ask someone to leave, or trespass.

 

[Bad Brain]

exactly. a property owner's property rights do not negate anyone's Constitutional rights; all a property owner can do is ask someone to leave, or trespass.

Okay, but the question was regarding the distinction between respecting and infringing.

 

[rsm]

Okay, but the question was regarding the distinction between respecting and infringing.

no obligation to respect if it requires denying Constitutional rights. only government can infringe; other citizens can attempt to deny, but they can't do more that ask someone to leave, or trespass them.

 

[Bad Brain]

no obligation to respect if it requires denying Constitutional rights. only government can infringe; other citizens can attempt to deny, but they can't do more that ask someone to leave, or trespass them.

I don't see it as a constitutional issue. It's just two competing private property claims with political implications. You can't deny their right to prevent your entry on their property — they can't deny your right to carry a gun (property).

 

[Laputan Machine]

NPR needs to lose all federal funding.

 

[rsm]

I don't see it as a constitutional issue. It's just two competing private property claims with political implications. You can't deny their right to their right to prevent your entry on their property — they can't deny your right to carry a gun (property).

not denying anything; and it is a Constitutional issue.

wherever an American citizen is, in the USA or its' territories, we have our Constitutional rights.

private property owners' rights do not suspend, negate, limit or infringe on our Constitutional rights.

If someone exercises their Constitutional rights on another's private property, and the property owner does not respect that exercise on their property, their only recourse is to ask that person to leave, or if they refuse, trespass them. That's it.

So private citizens can't infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights, they can only ask someone to leave or trespass them from their property.

 

[Bad Brain]

So private citizens can't infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights, they can only ask someone to leave or trespass them from their property.

It's all how you look at it. They can deny your entry and use force to remove you if you don't abide. Sure, you still have a constitutional right to carry a gun, but in effect you don't have that right on their property.

 

[rsm]

It's all how you look at it. They can deny your entry and use force to remove you if you don't abide. Sure, you still have a constitutional right to carry a gun, but in effect you don't have that right on their property.

they can ask someone to leave their property, or trespass them. now if they live in an area with Castle doctrine and stand your ground, they have more options.

 

[Bad Brain]

they can ask someone to leave their property, or trespass them. now if they live in an area with Castle doctrine and stand your ground, they have more options.

They could also install metal detectors and not even let you in in the first place.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Okay, but the question was regarding the distinction between respecting and infringing.

You starting to sound like Danielle a bit here bro.

 

[Floyd Eye]

It was YOUR analogy lol.


This is that perfect joke full circle thing I was talking about

In your confused, adolescent, gender fluid brain maybe.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

In your confused, adolescent, gender fluid brain maybe.

lol read the first page again. Those were your words, not mine.