- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
"North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena," the sign outside the convention hall reads. "In addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center.
Pursuant to Time Warner Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject to a magnetometer security check."Sound like the entryway into this years' Netroots Nation, a convention of liberal bloggers?
Well, it isn't: it's the sign outside the door to the convention for the country's largest gun rights organization, the NRA.
The only question I have is this? How could the NRA leadership have their heads so far up their asses that they chose to have their convention in a place that does not allow guns? This is yet another reason why Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a better organization.
Article is here.
The liberal blog ThinkProgress, which has posted in support of gun control, sent a correspondent to the convention to interview attendees. Three NRA convention members expressed support for the convention center's anti-gun policy. "You don’t have a problem with not bringing firearms here?" the blog asked.
"Not really," one NRA member said. "It’s up to the individual place of business. It’s their right to do as they choose. It’s my right to choose not to come in if I choose not to do so."
Raw Story is such trash. As already noted, the NRA didn't ban anything.
I also found this hilarious:
How is that "expressing support" for the "anti-gun policy"? That sounds like a /thread-esque response if I ever heard one.
I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.
"All women who enter are subject to rape."
"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"
No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.
I very much doubt that any of the framers of the constitution had this in mind.
Not that this proves anything, but:
# Being necessary to the security of a free State,
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
# The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms
# shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door.
Hmm I see your point, my source doesn't apply, but my opinion is unchanged.
I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door. If I invite a pregnant women over for BBQ, she does not resign her right to be free from assault when she steps onto my property. IMO the right to keep and carry is identical to the right to breath.
... I think you are carrying your enthusiasm for guns too far. Obviously a person can prohibit any item they desire from entering their property, exempting those cases where due process of law (aka, search warrants) is at work.
You lose the right to carry your gun when you step onto their property. You don't have to go onto their property.
No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.
Nobody forces you to do anything. They allow you to make your own choice.
I bet if the sign in front of the building said "no Black people allowed inside" you would see my point of view.
You don't have the right to assault someone just because they're in your home. You don't have the right to go through their things, neither do you have the right to enter their car simply because it's parked on your driveway. We even had a thread on that last example a month ago when an employer wouldn't allow employees to smoke in their own cars while those cars were on the company parking lot. The court ruled in favor of the employees.
I believe there was a similar case involving the storage of firearms on company property, that employees could bring them and store them in their cars. The reasoning was that a vehicle is an extension of the "person".
When you allow someone onto your property, you are choosing to permit the basic package of rights every person carries. If you don't like it, live as a hermit.
I bet if the sign in front of the building said "no Black people allowed inside" you would see my point of view.
You don't have the right to assault someone just because they're in your home.
You don't have the right to go through their things, neither do you have the right to enter their car simply because it's parked on your driveway. We even had a thread on that last example a month ago when an employer wouldn't allow employees to smoke in their own cars while those cars were on the company parking lot. The court ruled in favor of the employees.
believe there was a similar case involving the storage of firearms on company property, that employees could bring them and store them in their cars.
When you allow someone onto your property, you are choosing to permit the basic package of rights every person carries. If you don't like it, live as a hermit.
I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.
"All women who enter are subject to rape."
"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"
No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.
Just to make sure I understand this, you're saying that if someone invites you into their home, you have a right to carry a gun into their home without their permission?
You're saying that if they ask you to leave when you refuse to get rid of the gun, that you have a right to stay in their home without their permission?
Dude, it's not rape if she consents. And if a woman reads a posted sign that says, "Step onto this property and you will be ****ed", then she consents to be ****ed by way of willingly stepping onto that property knowing the "consequences".
So, it's not rape any more than the convention center is "forcing" you to give up your guns. If you CHOOSE to go inside, then you AGREE to leave your guns at the door. You are not forced to do anything.
... I think you are carrying your enthusiasm for guns too far. Obviously a person can prohibit any item they desire from entering their property, exempting those cases where due process of law (aka, search warrants) is at work.
You lose the right to carry your gun when you step onto their property. You don't have to go onto their property.
Again, a public building owner should have to demonstrate a need. A homeowner is merely being irrational but there's nothing anyone can really do.
Property < body, so I loose my right to carry when I step out of my body.
Hmm I see your point, my source doesn't apply, but my opinion is unchanged.
I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door. If I invite a pregnant women over for BBQ, she does not resign her right to be free from assault when she steps onto my property. IMO the right to keep and carry is identical to the right to breath.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?