How I damaged gun rights today

[88GT]

Unimformed? Haha ok, that's a good one. All I've gotten from this is contradictory statements from your arguments. I'm still lost about the point any of you were trying to make with the whole property rights thing. First, one of you seems to indicate that it's ok that they ban firearms in their premises but that I'm in the wrong when I said that the open rifle carry protest had no correlations with that.

First, they didn't ban them. That point has been made clear.

I will try to break down the property issue again.

As individuals who carry firearms, we have no right to carry on private property except our own property. None. Nada. Zilch. We have permission from the property owner, but absolutely no authority or power to do exercise our rights of our own accord. So the argument that we will "lose" that which we didn't have is fallacious. Property owners may rescind a permission once granted, but are rights are not being infringed. We still have all the legal rights we had, whether Chipotle says we can carry or not. The ability to carry on private property is NOT a rights issue. And since every private business has always had the legal right to deny access to those in possession of firearms, the day before the OC events wasn't any different than the day after the OC events.

It's totally laughable to say that it didn't.

Except I just explained how it didn't change our rights. No legislative action has passed.

Then you try and say that popular media is wrong about what they've been publishing when even the NRA doesn't agree with this.

Logical fallacy and straw man all rolled into one. The NRA's agreement doesn't make the content factual. It simply means the NRA has fallen for Shannon Watts version of reality too.

Don't get me wrong, I dont totally agree with the NRA but I refuse to act as if I don't recognize that they have influence in the leglslation of the second amendment.

And what legislation would that be, as it relates to the OC Texas incidents? Moreover, would you support the NRA in their endeavors to back legislation that limited/restricted OC?

Finally, how "coming back for more" turned into, "coming back for me" makes no sense to me but I'd like to clarify I meant to type the former but have been writing this from my iPhone so is like to take a moment to apologize for that slight mistake.

Because autocorrect on the i devices is malevolent and programmed to 'know' how best to turn an innocuous phrase into something that will turn you into a social pariah or at least look like the dumbest guy on earth.

 

[88GT]

I'm just going to leave this here. Although it is uncertain if recent events have brought them to this decision, I have my suspicions. And yes, deductive reasoning is considered to have validity, especially since I clearly stated I have my suspicions (I think I've wrote enough papers to know as much). Enjoy the read, it's fairly short.

Missouri Town Bans Openly Carried Firearms

Two comments. First, nobody ever actually bans OC because of the sheeple fear factor. That's just the excuse. (In this case, it's a very convenient one by tying it not only the probably non-existent fear factor, but also to the economic health factor. The reality is probably more like this: nobody want to visit the tired little town of Lake Ozark like they used to and the depended on tourism dollars is becoming noticeable. Rather than rebrand or revamp the town's finances to hurt less, it has decided that the solution is to ban OC. OC is banned because people want to control firearms. Scary thugs with tatoos and bling and pants below their ass crack frighten the sheeple too, but nobody seems to think that banning any of the scary elements is a solution. Why is that?

Second point: Missouri state legislature has passed legislation prohibiting just exactly what the scared little town in Missouri did. It awaits the governor's signature. If he signs it, that little town is going to be right back where they started and they'll have to look at more realistic solutions to their economic problems.

 

[Redhorse]

First, they didn't ban them. That point has been made clear.

I will try to break down the property issue again.

As individuals who carry firearms, we have no right to carry on private property except our own property. None. Nada. Zilch. We have permission from the property owner, but absolutely no authority or power to do exercise our rights of our own accord. So the argument that we will "lose" that which we didn't have is fallacious. Property owners may rescind a permission once granted, but are rights are not being infringed. We still have all the legal rights we had, whether Chipotle says we can carry or not. The ability to carry on private property is NOT a rights issue. And since every private business has always had the legal right to deny access to those in possession of firearms, the day before the OC events wasn't any different than the day after the OC events.


Except I just explained how it didn't change our rights. No legislative action has passed.



Logical fallacy and straw man all rolled into one. The NRA's agreement doesn't make the content factual. It simply means the NRA has fallen for Shannon Watts version of reality too.


And what legislation would that be, as it relates to the OC Texas incidents? Moreover, would you support the NRA in their endeavors to back legislation that limited/restricted OC?


Because autocorrect on the i devices is malevolent and programmed to 'know' how best to turn an innocuous phrase into something that will turn you into a social pariah or at least look like the dumbest guy on earth.

I sincerely hope you meant that as a general joke (this some comical relief in this discussion) and not as a slam against me. I assure you it was an accident. To be frank, this whole discussion has been a challenge from my phone

Now, back to the point. Property rights. My argument with that was that their open carry of rifles on the property of the store owner (at this point it's not important what store in particular) has hurt carry rights elsewhere while you have stated it has not. Now, if I understand your point, you make it seem like it's unimportant whether or not their actions did this because property rights trump carry rights. With all due respect, I respect property rights, but if they are open to the public for the public's money then the citizens have a right to self defense and with company's leaning towards (but not outright) banning all forms of carry on their premises then theses rights are being limited. Although some company's leaned that way in the past, more seem to be doing that now in light of the current events that transpired. Now if you still think that the property rights in a public establishment trump a citizens right to safe defense, I respect that but must also disagree. I believe each and every one of us are entitled to our own means of self defense. That was my entire argument with the property rights that the open rifle carry was correlated to a diminishing of carry rights (which I have clearly stated I think trump property rights when they are in a public establishment). That is why I'm so confused with the property rights debate now. One reason I'm against this part of open rifle carry is because I felt these businesses were leaning towards a general ban in response to the protest. That being said, I hope you can see my surprise. I hope now we have that cleared up.

I would just like to mention that I'm not against open rifle carry, it just seems to me that this hasn't helped the image of gun owners, carry rights (on a broad spectrum), or with public relations.

Which brings me to my point with the NRA. They are, in part, a lobby group, which lobby for gun rights. In response to the protest, they came out against initially. How this is somehow a logical fallacy doesn't make sense because their response is directly related. Gun owners aren't exactly helped when the biggest gun group in America come out AGAINST something that should be pushing for gun rights.

Honestly, the whole hypocrisy between legal open rifle carry but illegal open handgun carry in Texas (of all places) is a joke. I can't believe this was corrected long ago.

Finally, I am aware of the current legislation before the governor of Missouri, I simply thought this would be an interesting read for everyone. It came across my newsfeed and I thought of this thread.

 

[Redhorse]

You know, after reading this, I can't help but agree. This is something ALL of us, ALL gun owners need to read. I will be posting this as a thread later tonight, however, it seems most appropriate here as well. Please read.
An Open Letter to the Gun Community: STOP THE INFIGHTING!

The most relevant part of this article to this thread is as follows:

"You may disagree with the open carry of rifles, hell, you may disagree with the open carry of handguns, and that’s completely fine. It’s 100% within your rights to do so. It’s even completely acceptable to voice your opinion on the subject. However, when we voice those opinions with vitriol and hate, such as I’ve seen so far (with increasing frequency), we only appear weak and give ammo to our enemies. The same goes for open carry advocates. You have to be willing to accept criticism (when delivered in a civil manner) without responding with hateful comments."​

 

[88GT]

I sincerely hope you meant that as a general joke (this some comical relief in this discussion) and not as a slam against me. I assure you it was an accident. To be frank, this whole discussion has been a challenge from my phone

Now, back to the point. Property rights. My argument with that was that their open carry of rifles on the property of the store owner (at this point it's not important what store in particular) has hurt carry rights elsewhere while you have stated it has not. Now, if I understand your point, you make it seem like it's unimportant whether or not their actions did this because property rights trump carry rights. With all due respect, I respect property rights, but if they are open to the public for the public's money then the citizens have a right to self defense and with company's leaning towards (but not outright) banning all forms of carry on their premises then theses rights are being limited. Although some company's leaned that way in the past, more seem to be doing that now in light of the current events that transpired. Now if you still think that the property rights in a public establishment trump a citizens right to safe defense, I respect that but must also disagree. I believe each and every one of us are entitled to our own means of self defense. That was my entire argument with the property rights that the open rifle carry was correlated to a diminishing of carry rights (which I have clearly stated I think trump property rights when they are in a public establishment). That is why I'm so confused with the property rights debate now. One reason I'm against this part of open rifle carry is because I felt these businesses were leaning towards a general ban in response to the protest. That being said, I hope you can see my surprise. I hope now we have that cleared up.

I would just like to mention that I'm not against open rifle carry, it just seems to me that this hasn't helped the image of gun owners, carry rights (on a broad spectrum), or with public relations.

Which brings me to my point with the NRA. They are, in part, a lobby group, which lobby for gun rights. In response to the protest, they came out against initially. How this is somehow a logical fallacy doesn't make sense because their response is directly related. Gun owners aren't exactly helped when the biggest gun group in America come out AGAINST something that should be pushing for gun rights.

Honestly, the whole hypocrisy between legal open rifle carry but illegal open handgun carry in Texas (of all places) is a joke. I can't believe this was corrected long ago.

Finally, I am aware of the current legislation before the governor of Missouri, I simply thought this would be an interesting read for everyone. It came across my newsfeed and I thought of this thread.

Yes, I assure you that the last comment was a simple attempt at humor. As the user of several mobile i devices myself, I know the irritation autocorrect can cause.

Your position that "open for business" makes it a public place is common, but wrong. You are responsible for your self but you must do so according to the restrictions put on you by a property owner. If you don't like those terms, you have a choice not to enter the property. No one is personally obligated to allow you to carry. And no one accepts that responsibility by not allowing you to have firearms.

The exercise of your rights might be restricted on specific private property, but your full legal compliment of rights remains intact. Your "loss" of rights on private property is voluntary because you choose to accept those limitations when you enter the property. You are entitled to your choice of self defense, but your choices are subordinate to the wishes of the property owner. Always.

You do not have rights on private property. You have permissions. Period. That you think differently is irrelevant.

You attempted to equate the NRA's shared condemnation of the OC demonstrations as some sort of proof that the demonstrations were morally or socially wrong. There is no logical premise that supports such a conclusion. And until the NRA starts supporting legislation that bans OC, it's moot anyway.

 

[88GT]

I'll be happy to stop the "infighting" when the "freedom for some" crowd stops trying to tell me the only acceptable way to behave is determined by their standard.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I'll be happy to stop the "infighting" when the "freedom for some" crowd stops trying to tell me the only acceptable way to behave is determined by their standard.

Amen!

 

[Redhorse]

Yes, I assure you that the last comment was a simple attempt at humor. As the user of several mobile i devices myself, I know the irritation autocorrect can cause.

Your position that "open for business" makes it a public place is common, but wrong. You are responsible for your self but you must do so according to the restrictions put on you by a property owner. If you don't like those terms, you have a choice not to enter the property. No one is personally obligated to allow you to carry. And no one accepts that responsibility by not allowing you to have firearms.

The exercise of your rights might be restricted on specific private property, but your full legal compliment of rights remains intact. Your "loss" of rights on private property is voluntary because you choose to accept those limitations when you enter the property. You are entitled to your choice of self defense, but your choices are subordinate to the wishes of the property owner. Always.

You do not have rights on private property. You have permissions. Period. That you think differently is irrelevant.

You attempted to equate the NRA's shared condemnation of the OC demonstrations as some sort of proof that the demonstrations were morally or socially wrong. There is no logical premise that supports such a conclusion. And until the NRA starts supporting legislation that bans OC, it's moot anyway.

Haha well that was much needed comical relief
Ah, well our difference of opinions will easily display our different stances concerning the matter at hand then. Some states allow signage laws, some do not, some are silent. Now i understand why we are on separate sides because i feel banning firearms in a place of business diminishes self defense rights/capabilities/privileges. We clearly have different views on this which explains our positions more clearly. I will only add that by implementing their property rights, they damage our self defense rights/capabilities/privileges when and if we chose to go said establishments. To me, this is a negative result of that protest which I'm sure was not their intention but was still, a result.

Allow me to clarify my NRA example. It is simply that, just an example. I wished to present it from a legislative point of view. Since they came against it, it gives the other side evidence to use against open carry itself (i.e. anti-gun statement:"See, even the NRA doesn't support them, we must ban the carry of firearms from these crazy, irresponsible gun owners!"). Forgive me, I never meant to imply that it was "morally or socially wrong" (I mean that quote with respect and credibility, not with any malicious intent), only to point out that perhaps the negative outcomes outweigh the positive ones. Yes, the Texas Republicans did put open carry on their platform, however, I believe that negative long term effects could result in future damage to gun rights across the rest of the states. To them, they made their point. For the rest of us? Only time will tell, and trust me, I want to be wrong about the future.

I just want to clarify that I don't believe that open rifle carry is "morally or socially wrong," just that this incident will give the antis evidence to use in future gun control arguments on the legislative level.

 

[Redhorse]

I'll be happy to stop the "infighting" when the "freedom for some" crowd stops trying to tell me the only acceptable way to behave is determined by their standard.

Amen!

How does everyone feel about the continuation of our discussion at this point? I think, given its relatively civil manner, that continuing it wouldn't hurt anything.

 

[ATM]

...Allow me to clarify my NRA example. It is simply that, just an example. I wished to present it from a legislative point of view. Since they came against it, it gives the other side evidence to use against open carry itself (i.e. anti-gun statement:"See, even the NRA doesn't support them, we must ban the carry of firearms from these crazy, irresponsible gun owners!")...

I just want to make sure that you're aware that the NRA quickly retracted and corrected the opinion of that one staffer, officially proclaiming their support:

Chris Cox is already doing damage control on the Cam & Co. show attempting to undo the damage of some poorly injected opinion by one of their staff writers.

NRA News | Chris W. Cox: NRA "Unequivocally" Supports Open Carry

Though I respect the writer's right to have an opinion, he should not have presented it as speaking for the NRA.

 

[88GT]

Now i understand why we are on separate sides because i feel banning firearms in a place of business diminishes self defense rights/capabilities/privileges. We clearly have different views on this which explains our positions more clearly. I will only add that by implementing their property rights, they damage our self defense rights/capabilities/privileges when and if we chose to go said establishments.

Practically, you have fewer places for the exercise of those rights, but you have the CHOICE to diminish those rights. You voluntarily disarm yourself by accepting the terms of entering that private property. How is it that you can sit here and argue that two groups of people should have their rights diminished so yours aren't?

I just want to clarify that I don't believe that open rifle carry is "morally or socially wrong," just that this incident will give the antis evidence to use in future gun control arguments on the legislative level.

So what? Are you willing to throw your fellow gun owners under the bus to have a few scraps from the table?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

(SNIP) i feel banning firearms in a place of business diminishes self defense rights/capabilities/privileges. I will only add that by implementing their property rights, they damage our self defense rights/capabilities/privileges when and if we chose to go said establishments.

Places that ban firearms, places that ask me to leave my gun at home, places that post signs, legal or not, do not damage any of my rights, including self defense and the RKBA. They only damage themselves because I will absolutely discriminate against them all by giving them zero business. They haven't diminished my rights in any way whatsoever. They do hurt themselves, though.

 

[Redhorse]

Places that ban firearms, places that ask me to leave my gun at home, places that post signs, legal or not, do not damage any of my rights, including self defense and the RKBA. They only damage themselves because I will absolutely discriminate against them all by giving them zero business. They haven't diminished my rights in any way whatsoever. They do hurt themselves, though.

Perhaps, but where will you go if banning becomes mainstream? I'm sorry, but surly you'll want somewhere you can go and be able to carry. I, for one, don't want the actions of a few to come back to negatively affect us all.

 

[88GT]

Perhaps, but where will you go if banning becomes mainstream? I'm sorry, but surly you'll want somewhere you can go and be able to carry. I, for one, don't want the actions of a few to come back to negatively affect us all.

In Indiana the signs have no weight of law. And even if they did, it would largely be a trespass issue. OCers would be forced to choose between OC and patronizing the establishment in question while CCing. Not really any different than it is now, no? Besides, do you really think that all restaurants will ban firearms?

To the bolded statement: instead you'd rather tell someone to surrender his rights and/or hide them because you want what doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Perhaps, but where will you go if banning becomes mainstream? I'm sorry, but surly you'll want somewhere you can go and be able to carry. I, for one, don't want the actions of a few to come back to negatively affect us all.

The idea of banning isn't a concern for me. Dollars and sense; the market will dictate what happens. When businesses determine the bottom line is suffering, all that will go away.

On another tack, eventually, gun free zones will be seen for what they are, target rich environments. IIRC, at least 2 JIB restaurants have been robbed since adopting the "please don't bring your gun here" policy. A restaurant in the Carolinas, too. I'm sure there is more but I don't want to dig them up.

 

[cce1302]

Haha well that was much needed comical relief
Ah, well our difference of opinions will easily display our different stances concerning the matter at hand then. Some states allow signage laws, some do not, some are silent. Now i understand why we are on separate sides because i feel banning firearms in a place of business diminishes self defense rights/capabilities/privileges. We clearly have different views on this which explains our positions more clearly. I will only add that by implementing their property rights, they damage our self defense rights/capabilities/privileges when and if we chose to go said establishments. To me, this is a negative result of that protest which I'm sure was not their intention but was still, a result.

Allow me to clarify my NRA example. It is simply that, just an example. I wished to present it from a legislative point of view. Since they came against it, it gives the other side evidence to use against open carry itself (i.e. anti-gun statement:"See, even the NRA doesn't support them, we must ban the carry of firearms from these crazy, irresponsible gun owners!"). Forgive me, I never meant to imply that it was "morally or socially wrong" (I mean that quote with respect and credibility, not with any malicious intent), only to point out that perhaps the negative outcomes outweigh the positive ones. Yes, the Texas Republicans did put open carry on their platform, however, I believe that negative long term effects could result in future damage to gun rights across the rest of the states. To them, they made their point. For the rest of us? Only time will tell, and trust me, I want to be wrong about the future.

I just want to clarify that I don't believe that open rifle carry is "morally or socially wrong," just that this incident will give the antis evidence to use in future gun control arguments on the legislative level.

So does this mean that you will no longer argue against long gun open carry and lend your voice as a "gun owner" to the anti-gun crowd?

 

[Redhorse]

In Indiana the signs have no weight of law. And even if they did, it would largely be a trespass issue. OCers would be forced to choose between OC and patronizing the establishment in question while CCing. Not really any different than it is now, no? Besides, do you really think that all restaurants will ban firearms?

To the bolded statement: instead you'd rather tell someone to surrender his rights and/or hide them because you want what doesn't exist in the first place.

I believe I stated earlier in the thread that signage laws hold no weight in Indiana. They do, however, in Illionois. I think most restaurants (a good majority) will if the media makes them think it's profitable by doing so. It's a considerable outcome.

 

[Redhorse]

The idea of banning isn't a concern for me. Dollars and sense; the market will dictate what happens. When businesses determine the bottom line is suffering, all that will go away.

On another tack, eventually, gun free zones will be seen for what they are, target rich environments. IIRC, at least 2 JIB restaurants have been robbed since adopting the "please don't bring your gun here" policy. A restaurant in the Carolinas, too. I'm sure there is more but I don't want to dig them up.

I'm with you on he gun free zones and hope you're completely right about it. That'll take some political maneuvering for sure. The idea of banning is a concern for me because I'm not sure there's enough of us to make a commanding difference. However, am I wrong? If so, pleas correct me.

 

[Redhorse]

So does this mean that you will no longer argue against long gun open carry and lend your voice as a "gun owner" to the anti-gun crowd?

I never said I was doing anything of he kind sir. I respectfully ask you to be more open-minded then to think that I've magically jumped ship and became an anti-gun liberal.

 

[Redhorse]

This seems to present an effective means of open rifle carry, what does everyone else think?

P320 Entry: A Primer for Effective Open Carry | The Truth About Guns