CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut - Page 5

View Poll Results: Boycott Pizza Hut Nationwide

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Boycott Pizza Hut Till They Make A Televised, Printed, Apology And Retraction

    41 63.08%
  • Pizza Hut infringed upon its employees 2A Rights, Iowa's Right To Carry, by its policy & actions

    33 50.77%
  • No, I am With The Democrats & Obama Do Not Boycott Pizza Hut, They Were Well Within Their Rights

    5 7.69%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 101

Thread: CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut

  1. Well what ever you all decide to do is ok with me.I chose to not eat at pizza hut again.I also sent them an email stating such.

  2.   
  3. #42
    I boycotted Pizza Hut a long time ago for thier policies, and thier lousy pizza. I am pro rights and do not knowingly support companies that are anti 2A.

    Always a sheep dog not a sheep!!!

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I AM NOT WRONG; YOU ARE... Read the fricking post(s) and then if you disagree show me chapter and verse where the Bill of Rights and or Constitution gives anybody the right to infringe upon any individuals inalienable rights...

    Just because they have been getting away with it until now does not make it right or legal...
    And the NRA, GOA, And SAF are on their way to putting the kibosh on that...

    It does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...

    It does not say no one may be deprived of their life, liberty, inalienable rights etc.... without due process of law... Except...

    Sorry for the long absence; I was at work. Anyway, now that I've returned, here's my latest statement.

    You seem to think that an individual's constitutional rights, if they are inalienable, should render a property owner's property rights null and void and should guarantee job security for all.

    By the way, I have read the frickin post and you're still wrong. Find me the section of the constitution that guarantees job security for people whose exercise of their inalienable rights guarantees them job security. You can't find it because it's not there. Exercise your inalienable rights all you want, even where a property owner specifically says he doesn't want them to be, but just remember that exercising them entitles you to nothing when done on someone else's property.

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Sorry for the long absence; I was at work. Anyway, now that I've returned, here's my latest statement.

    You seem to think that an individual's constitutional rights, if they are inalienable, should render a property owner's property rights null and void and should guarantee job security for all.

    By the way, I have read the frickin post and you're still wrong. Find me the section of the constitution that guarantees job security for people whose exercise of their inalienable rights guarantees them job security. You can't find it because it's not there. Exercise your inalienable rights all you want, even where a property owner specifically says he doesn't want them to be, but just remember that exercising them entitles you to nothing when done on someone else's property.
    You are still wrong...

    The "due-process" clause occurs twice in the United States Constitution. First, in the Fifth Amendment: "…nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" Second, in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

    And...
    The Second Amendment reads...
    "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    Last edited by Bohemian; 07-04-2008 at 08:00 AM.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    You are still wrong...

    The "due-process" clause occurs twice in the United States Constitution. First, in the Fifth Amendment: "…nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" Second, in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

    And...
    The Second Amendment reads...
    "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    I am not wrong, darnit! Look the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment refers to the government. No government, either federal, state, or local, can pass laws that in any way infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms. However, let's not forget that property owners have rights to, and if they want to prohibit the exercise of 2A as part of this exercising of their rights, then they have every right to do so. If I am a property owner who does not want guns on my property, you cannot carry them there, PERIOD! Whether or not guns can be carried there is not your call; it is mine and mine entirely. If you do not like that policy, nobody is forcing you to be there; you are just as free to go somewhere else as I am not to allow guns on my property. The same goes for private companies. They are just as free not to allow guns on company property (or by employees while on company time) as people are not to work there.

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I am not wrong, darnit! Look the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment refers to the government. No government, either federal, state, or local, can pass laws that in any way infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms. However, let's not forget that property owners have rights to, and if they want to prohibit the exercise of 2A as part of this exercising of their rights, then they have every right to do so. If I am a property owner who does not want guns on my property, you cannot carry them there, PERIOD! Whether or not guns can be carried there is not your call; it is mine and mine entirely. If you do not like that policy, nobody is forcing you to be there; you are just as free to go somewhere else as I am not to allow guns on my property. The same goes for private companies. They are just as free not to allow guns on company property (or by employees while on company time) as people are not to work there.
    This is what you do not fundamentally understand...

    You are trying to read some things into the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments that are just not there or anywhere else in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence...

    This is the same tired ass argument that the SCOTUS shot down in the Parker-Heller decision...

    INALIENABLE RIGHTS DO NOT STOP AND START at property lines and employment lines...

    Trespassing is a separate issue...

    This is not about a corporate policy that says you can't wear tank tops to work...

    This is why the NRA, GOA, SAF and the ACLU are finally bringing these cases to court(s) and winning, because Barack Hussein Obama loving, Brady Campaign loving individuals and corporations such as Pizza Hut think that they can impose imaginary restrictions upon individuals that deprive them of such inalienable rights as life, liberty, and infringe upon their inalienable right to bear arms and to self-preservation just to name a few...

    The Unanimous Declaration
    of the Thirteen United States of America

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. -- And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    -- John Hancock

    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

    New York:
    William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

    Virginia:
    George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

    North Carolina:
    William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

    The "due-process" clause occurs twice in the United States Constitution. First, in the Fifth Amendment: "…nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" Second, in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

    And...
    The Second Amendment reads...
    "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    This is what you do not fundamentally understand...

    You are trying to read some things into the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments that are just not there or anywhere else in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence...

    This is the same tired ass argument that the SCOTUS shot down in the Parker-Heller decision...

    INALIENABLE RIGHTS DO NOT STOP AND START at property lines and employment lines...

    Trespassing is a separate issue...

    This is not about a corporate policy that says you can't wear tank tops to work...

    This is why the NRA, GOA, SAF and the ACLU are finally bringing these cases to court(s) and winning, because Barack Hussein Obama loving, Brady Campaign loving individuals and corporations such as Pizza Hut think that they can impose imaginary restrictions upon individuals that deprive them of such inalienable rights as life, liberty, and infringe upon their inalienable right to bear arms and to self-preservation just to name a few...

    The Unanimous Declaration
    of the Thirteen United States of America

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. -- And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    -- John Hancock

    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

    New York:
    William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

    Virginia:
    George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

    North Carolina:
    William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

    The "due-process" clause occurs twice in the United States Constitution. First, in the Fifth Amendment: "…nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" Second, in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

    And...
    The Second Amendment reads...
    "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    I'm well aware of the constitution, particularly the amendments of which you speak, as well as the declaration of independence. However, in making reference to the preamble (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), you seem to think, with respect to this argument, that this applies to anyone keeping and bearing arms, but not to property owners with respect to their right to prohibit it to whatever extent they wish on THEIR property. In case you forgot, property/business owners are also entitled to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness under the constitution, and if that liberty includes them choosing to prohibit guns on company property and on company time, the constitution recognizes that, and the government can't penalize them for that.

    What's wrong with companies and property owners deciding what can or cannot happen on their own property (provided that they take responsibility for the safety of anyone on their property if they don't allow guns)? Sure you don't have to like it, but it is THEIR property, and if you don't like their rules, nothing is forcing you to continue working there or continue spending money there, or even being present there. At the same time, forcing them to allow guns where they are not wanted is contrary to the very concept of liberty with respect to property owners.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I'm well aware of the constitution, particularly the amendments of which you speak, as well as the declaration of independence. However, in making reference to the preamble (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), you seem to think, with respect to this argument, that this applies to anyone keeping and bearing arms, but not to property owners with respect to their right to prohibit it to whatever extent they wish on THEIR property. In case you forgot, property/business owners are also entitled to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness under the constitution, and if that liberty includes them choosing to prohibit guns on company property and on company time, the constitution recognizes that, and the government can't penalize them for that.

    What's wrong with companies and property owners deciding what can or cannot happen on their own property (provided that they take responsibility for the safety of anyone on their property if they don't allow guns)? Sure you don't have to like it, but it is THEIR property, and if you don't like their rules, nothing is forcing you to continue working there or continue spending money there, or even being present there. At the same time, forcing them to allow guns where they are not wanted is contrary to the very concept of liberty with respect to property owners.
    Again your logic is flawed and you are bringing cheers from the Barack Hussein Obama and Brady Campaign lovers...

    You are so on the wrong forum...

    uber liberal, ultra left wing nut jobs for the abolishment of inalienable rights can be found at barack obama dot com.

    Moreover, you continue to make inferences to things being covered by the constitution that are simply not there...

    The founding fathers were very clear on how to proceed if something was not specifically addressed it becomes a state issue, as long as it does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of U.S. Citizens...

    There are no provisions or exceptions to allow a state, city or other municipality to infringe upon a U.S. Citizens Inalienable Rights...

    Most legal scholars believe that individual property rights are addressed in the constitution under the tenth amendment...
    E.G.:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...

    Property rights are mentioned four times in the constitution...

    First in section three...
    Section 3 - New States...
    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State...

    2nd in the 5th amendment...nor (shall any person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    3rd in the 10th amendment... which is where individual property rights are addressed...
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    4th in in the 14th amendment...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

    The 10th amendment is clearly where individual property rights are addresses as NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ADDRESSED, therefore it is left as a STATE issue...

    Property rights are not an inalienable right in the U.S. Constitution...

    This is not something that is protected under the Iowa Constitution either... (where this occurred)

    A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile or persons attire. Moreover, an employer`s private property interests do not trump a person`s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
    if a business prohibits people from possessing the means to defend themselves, it is liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure to provide adequate security.

    I think a Senator from Iowa where this infringement took place to begin with said it best when he called for the BOYCOTT OF PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE AS HAVE I...

    A Pizza Hut delivery driver with a valid handgun permit has been fired after he shot an armed robber who put a gun to his head and demanded he turn over his cash. Now an Iowa state senator is calling for a boycott of Pizza Hut:
    You tell me any Iowan or American that was in his situation, that had a gun put to his head, how they would've reacted differently," state Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale said. "I think it's the wrong decision by Pizza Hut and I will not be buying any more Pizza Hut products.

    The State of Iowa recognizes a responsible, competent citizen’s right to self-defense through gun ownership including the right to carry a concealed weapon...

    Read about twenty and counting pizza delivery self-defense shootings:
    Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
    Last edited by Bohemian; 07-05-2008 at 11:51 AM.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Again your logic is flawed and you are bringing cheers from the Barack Hussein Obama and Brady Campaign lovers...

    You are so on the wrong forum...

    uber liberal, ultra left wing nut jobs for the abolishment of inalienable rights can be found at barack obama dot com.

    Moreover, you continue to make inferences to things being covered by the constitution that are simply not there...

    The founding fathers were very clear on how to proceed if something was not specifically addressed it becomes a state issue, as long as it does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of U.S. Citizens...

    There are no provisions or exceptions to allow a state, city or other municipality to infringe upon a U.S. Citizens Inalienable Rights...

    Most legal scholars believe that individual property rights are addressed in the constitution under the tenth amendment...
    E.G.:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...

    Property rights are mentioned four times in the constitution...

    First in section three...
    Section 3 - New States...
    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State...

    2nd in the 5th amendment...nor (shall any person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    3rd in the 10th amendment... which is where individual property rights are addressed...
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    4th in in the 14th amendment...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

    The 10th amendment is clearly where individual property rights are addresses as NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ADDRESSED, therefore it is left as a STATE issue...

    Property rights are not an inalienable right in the U.S. Constitution...

    This is not something that is protected under the Iowa Constitution either... (where this occurred)

    A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile or persons attire. Moreover, an employer`s private property interests do not trump a person`s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
    if a business prohibits people from possessing the means to defend themselves, it is liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure to provide adequate security.

    I think a Senator from Iowa where this infringement took place to begin with said it best when he called for the BOYCOTT OF PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE AS HAVE I...

    A Pizza Hut delivery driver with a valid handgun permit has been fired after he shot an armed robber who put a gun to his head and demanded he turn over his cash. Now an Iowa state senator is calling for a boycott of Pizza Hut:
    You tell me any Iowan or American that was in his situation, that had a gun put to his head, how they would've reacted differently," state Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale said. "I think it's the wrong decision by Pizza Hut and I will not be buying any more Pizza Hut products.

    The State of Iowa recognizes a responsible, competent citizen’s right to self-defense through gun ownership including the right to carry a concealed weapon...

    Read about twenty and counting pizza delivery self-defense shootings:
    Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
    As wrong as you are Bohemian, I have to admit that I admire your determination. You would make an excellent lawyer. I also admire how, despite our adamant disagreement on this issue, how we have managed to keep this thing civil, unlike the typical anti, who relies on emotion-laced rhetoric and insults to get their point across.

    Anyway, you would agree with me that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, correct? Would you not also agree that these rights are enjoyed by everyone, whether pro or anti 2A, property owners, business owners, gay people, etc? Then tell me, how could you be in favor of promoting liberty for one group at the expense of another (people who do not want guns on their property)?

    I'm about to take another approach here. Do you remember the Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v Dale? In it, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, determined that the Boy Scouts, because it was a private organization, had the right to decide its own qualifications and exclude whoever it wanted. Think about what would have happened if the Court had ruled against the Boy Scouts. Telling the Boy Scouts that it has to admit gay scoutmasters would be like telling the NRA that it has to admit gun control activists, the Brady Campaign that it has to admit gun rights activists, and the KKK that it has to admit Blacks. By extension, the same principle applies to private property and private business owners. They have the right to determine what rules employees must follow while on company time, and to deny admission to anyone they want, for whatever reason. Telling a private property owner that, despite not wanting guns on their property, that they must allow them, is no different from telling the Boy Scouts, or any other private organization for that matter, that they cannot run their organization as they see fit, something that runs completely counter to the inalienable right of liberty.

  11. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As wrong as you are Bohemian, I have to admit that I admire your determination. You would make an excellent lawyer. I also admire how, despite our adamant disagreement on this issue, how we have managed to keep this thing civil, unlike the typical anti, who relies on emotion-laced rhetoric and insults to get their point across.

    Anyway, you would agree with me that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, correct? Would you not also agree that these rights are enjoyed by everyone, whether pro or anti 2A, property owners, business owners, gay people, etc? Then tell me, how could you be in favor of promoting liberty for one group at the expense of another (people who do not want guns on their property)?

    I'm about to take another approach here. Do you remember the Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v Dale? In it, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, determined that the Boy Scouts, because it was a private organization, had the right to decide its own qualifications and exclude whoever it wanted. Think about what would have happened if the Court had ruled against the Boy Scouts. Telling the Boy Scouts that it has to admit gay scoutmasters would be like telling the NRA that it has to admit gun control activists, the Brady Campaign that it has to admit gun rights activists, and the KKK that it has to admit Blacks. By extension, the same principle applies to private property and private business owners. They have the right to determine what rules employees must follow while on company time, and to deny admission to anyone they want, for whatever reason. Telling a private property owner that, despite not wanting guns on their property, that they must allow them, is no different from telling the Boy Scouts, or any other private organization for that matter, that they cannot run their organization as they see fit, something that runs completely counter to the inalienable right of liberty.
    The SCOTUS Scouting opinion, came under the 1st amendment primarily...

    And the Scouts are non-profit private and are not subject to the same hiring, membership criteria, etc. that a private company, corporation is...
    Further, if they were a Publicly traded company, they would go back under federal jurisdiction only and the SEC, which also prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color or sexual preference, etc...

    Non-Profits can do what ever they want as long as they do not deprive the inalienable rights of other U.S. Citizens... This is how they got the KKK over and over again...

    If they were a for profit company they would have to hire gays and anybody else that qualified...

    Property rights come under the 10th amendment, and therefore a state issue unless its Indian Land, and then only Congress and the SCOTUS and Indian Tribunals have jurisdiction.

    Both the U.S. constitution and every state constitution that I have read do not give preference of one right over another at the expense of another individual... as I previously itemized...

    What they are clear on is that Property Rights and the Rights of Employers etc are limited to not infringing upon the inalienable rights of any U.S. Citizen...

    Further, that property rights and employment rights are not inalienable rights nor liberties guaranteed by the constitution; nor any state constitution; they are a state, city or other municipality legislation/statue issue...

    Therefore, when a entity such as an employer under the jurisdiction of a particular state infringes upon the inalienable rights of a U.S. Citizen to defend themselves; they be come liable under the particular states liability and contract and tort laws.

    Additionally, as previously itemized a persons rights to defend themselves does not stop when they get into their car or step onto someones private property, or their employers work place...

    A U.S. Citizen has the inalienable right to defend themselves by any means necessary wherever they happen to be standing, sitting or laying at the time...

    Unless the state, city or other municipality has infringed upon their inalienable rights and then they are in violation of the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as any state constitution, statues, etc., they are violating, most of which mirror the U.S. constitution pretty close...

    The SCOTUS was pretty clear in their Parker-Heller decision, that the right to defend yourself is a basic right and therefore is subject to no further scrutiny; in other words, common sense gun control (Obama's Campaign Motto) can not be applied to a basic right or inalienable right...
    Last edited by Bohemian; 07-05-2008 at 09:08 PM.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast