Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/5/2004 6:15:45 AM EST
1. The right to self defense is a universal or god-given right. Carrying of implements for same is included.
2. 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" .
3. What gives corporate America the "right" to infringe on this?
4. Why can't they infringe on other "rights" with impunity? life, freedom of travel, slavery,religion?
5. Why is corporate america seen as higher than the government for purposes of infringement of personal protection rights?
6. Why does corporate america worry so much about "rights of privacy" or other HR issues when they are so adamant about stomping on other rights?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 6:20:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 6:24:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
1. The right to self defense is a universal or god-given right. Carrying of implements for same is included.
2. 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" .
3. What gives corporate America the "right" to infringe on this?
4. Why can't they infringe on other "rights" with impunity? life, freedom of travel, slavery,religion?
5. Why is corporate america seen as higher than the government for purposes of infringement of personal protection rights?
6. Why does corporate america worry so much about "rights of privacy" or other HR issues when they are so adamant about stomping on other rights?



Same answer to each question, once your birth certificate is truned into a "legal enitiy" title then you become just property of the U.S. corporation known as the U.S., so in the eyeys of the U.S. Code you are just property to be used as collateral against the U.S. debt, the counter to that is when you have NO nexus with the U.S. Government and you are a Sovereign citizen living breathing soul.

Each benefit you take from government makes you dependent upon it and places you under it's control, by being independent of the government accepting no benefits you are not under it's control or obligation.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 6:26:06 AM EST
Can I insist on bringing a weapon onto your property, despite your objections?


Same concept.



Personally, I think if you are going to hang a shingle and be open to the public, you should have to allow weapons, just like you have to allow blacks or gays, or whatever.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 6:46:56 AM EST
Shotar, according to you , I can have slavery at MY company?
fight4yourrights, certainly, the only thing I can ask you to do is leave. If I want you there, then I am not going to imprison you without cause, rape you, enslave you or otherwise take away your "rights".
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:55:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Can I insist on bringing a weapon onto your property, despite your objections?


Same concept.



Personally, I think if you are going to hang a shingle and be open to the public, you should have to allow weapons, just like you have to allow blacks or gays, or whatever.



This is a very important issue and should be pressed further by gun organizations. The difference is "public accommodation." You can tell me whatever you want as far as restrictions IN YOUR OWN HOME. Indeed, you can legally refuse to rent a room in your own home to someone based on race. But, as soon as it becomes a public accommodation such as a restaurant, store or hotel, those rights cease. I feel there is no difference with firearms. The difference, of course, is that because it's a firearm no one cares about your rights. If you are carrying legally in your state, there is no reason a business should be able to restrict you so long as you are obeying the law.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:37:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
But, as soon as it becomes a public accommodation such as a restaurant, store or hotel, those rights cease.



Not true, IIRC. The signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" allows businesses to tell the "public" to hit the road, IMO.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:41:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
But, as soon as it becomes a public accommodation such as a restaurant, store or hotel, those rights cease.



Not true, IIRC. The signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" allows businesses to tell the "public" to hit the road, IMO.




Exactly - "no shirt, no shoes, no service" might interfere with my perceived pursuit of happiness, but it's their house and their rules.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:50:24 AM EST
Everything is contract based now, originally a contract had three parts,

1. agreement between the parties
2.disclosure of what was being agreed too
3. consideration, something of value to the party.

However now the gov claims the meeting of the minds "agreement" is if you accept a benefit "consideration" and there is no real disclosure and the benefit is actually your money so your not really reciveing a benefit when it is your property to begin with.

Never the less the only way to have a equitable system is to have equal weights and measures, there must be real money not credit based on faith is a unequitable system like the federal reserve bank.

The whole corrupt system relies on your consent.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:17:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 9:18:23 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Everything is contract based now, originally a contract had three parts,

1. agreement between the parties
2.disclosure of what was being agreed too
3. consideration, something of value to the party.

However now the gov claims the meeting of the minds "agreement" is if you accept a benefit "consideration" and there is no real disclosure and the benefit is actually your money so your not really reciveing a benefit when it is your property to begin with.

Never the less the only way to have a equitable system is to have equal weights and measures, there must be real money not credit based on faith is a unequitable system like the federal reserve bank.

The whole corrupt system relies on your consent.



STRATIOTES: Please take your meds.

Hound: To the question at hand: Since corporations are legal "persons" they can exercise many of the same rights as actual persons: They can deny to anyone who enters their property whatever is not specifically prohibited by law. So, since slavery is prohibited (by Constutiional amendment), it cannot be practiced on private property. Also, only the government can infringe the 2nd Amendment. Me telling you that you cannot bring a gun into my house is not a 2nd Amendment infringement. Same things with corporations.

Your confusion is because you do not understand that the Constitution is a compact between the citizens and the government. Except in a few limited instances, it does not reach private actions, including the actions of legal persons known as corporations.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:23:10 AM EST
So, since slavery is prohibited (by Constutiional amendment), it cannot be practiced on private property.
So, since the RTK is protected (by Constitutional amendment), it can be practiced on private property.

That is my sticking point. If one "right" is banned and one protected, then why do we have the lack of both?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:32:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
So, since slavery is prohibited (by Constutiional amendment), it cannot be practiced on private property.
So, since the RTK is protected (by Constitutional amendment), it can be practiced on private property.

That is my sticking point. If one "right" is banned and one protected, then why do we have the lack of both?



Only the government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Me telling you that you have to leave your guns out of my home does not infringe this right anymore than me not letting you scream obsenities in my home infringes your first amendment right. It is private action between two private parties.

Slavery, on the other hand, always infringes the right of the one enslaved, no matter who is doing the enslaving. Slavery also requires a legal framework to exist: i.e. laws that allow the posession of one person by another. Such laws were banned when the 13th Amendment passed. Hence, even in private, slavery is illegal.

No law is required to have me tell you "No guns in my house." "No swearing in my house." You are comparing apples to oranges.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:40:39 AM EST


Only the government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

No every church, store,amusement park,frat house,whore house and chicken house does this. Schools even say I can't carry in the street near them.

Slavery, on the other hand, always infringes the right of the one enslaved...and telling me that I can not protect myself, while not taking that burden from me, does not infringe on my simple human right to life?

I simply can not understand , where we went wrong. We have a right to abortion and to freedom of expression that includes stripping and flag burning, we have the right to pornography as "free speech".
And still any tom dick or harry can tell me that I have to be helpless when I am on their premises.....I REALLy do not understand.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:49:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
But, as soon as it becomes a public accommodation such as a restaurant, store or hotel, those rights cease.



Not true, IIRC. The signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" allows businesses to tell the "public" to hit the road, IMO.



Try it with an African-American.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:50:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 9:51:04 AM EST by manghu67]
if you dont like their rules, then dont patronize their business... its quite simple, really...

vote with your dollars...

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:01:02 AM EST
this subject has such a fine line.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:06:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By hound:
1. The right to self defense is a universal or god-given right. Carrying of implements for same is included.
2. 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" .
3. What gives corporate America the "right" to infringe on this?
4. Why can't they infringe on other "rights" with impunity? life, freedom of travel, slavery,religion?
5. Why is corporate america seen as higher than the government for purposes of infringement of personal protection rights?
6. Why does corporate america worry so much about "rights of privacy" or other HR issues when they are so adamant about stomping on other rights?



Same answer to each question, once your birth certificate is truned into a "legal enitiy" title then you become just property of the U.S. corporation known as the U.S., so in the eyeys of the U.S. Code you are just property to be used as collateral against the U.S. debt, the counter to that is when you have NO nexus with the U.S. Government and you are a Sovereign citizen living breathing soul.

Each benefit you take from government makes you dependent upon it and places you under it's control, by being independent of the government accepting no benefits you are not under it's control or obligation.



TINFOIL HAT TIME!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:24:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By hound:
So, since slavery is prohibited (by Constutiional amendment), it cannot be practiced on private property.
So, since the RTK is protected (by Constitutional amendment), it can be practiced on private property.

That is my sticking point. If one "right" is banned and one protected, then why do we have the lack of both?



Only the government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Me telling you that you have to leave your guns out of my home does not infringe this right anymore than me not letting you scream obsenities in my home infringes your first amendment right. It is private action between two private parties.

Slavery, on the other hand, always infringes the right of the one enslaved, no matter who is doing the enslaving. Slavery also requires a legal framework to exist: i.e. laws that allow the posession of one person by another. Such laws were banned when the 13th Amendment passed. Hence, even in private, slavery is illegal.

No law is required to have me tell you "No guns in my house." "No swearing in my house." You are comparing apples to oranges.




That's a pretty clear explanation right there

.... except that he's a psychopolitical infiltrator!!! It might be a trap!!!

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:38:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By hound:

Only the government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

No every church, store,amusement park,frat house,whore house and chicken house does this. Schools even say I can't carry in the street near them.

Slavery, on the other hand, always infringes the right of the one enslaved...and telling me that I can not protect myself, while not taking that burden from me, does not infringe on my simple human right to life?

I simply can not understand , where we went wrong. We have a right to abortion and to freedom of expression that includes stripping and flag burning, we have the right to pornography as "free speech".
And still any tom dick or harry can tell me that I have to be helpless when I am on their premises.....I REALLy do not understand.



So, I guess I can come over to your house, post a sign in your yard that says in four foot-tall letters "Hound is a child molester." If you take the sign down, I will accuse you of infringing on my God-given right to free speech. How dare you censor me!

See how stupid your contention is that a private entity saying you can't carry a gun on the property THEY OWN is an infringement of your rights. Your rights end at another person's property line, unless specifically protected (like certain civil rights).

Did you ever consider that you wanting to do whatever you wish on property someone else wons is an infringement of their PROPERTY RIGHTS? Since property as a right is mentioned in the Constitution more often than are arms, one could make an argument that the Founders held property rights very high.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:20:27 AM EST
Pae, you seem to keep twisting this, I may give you the private individuals right to try to disarm me on their property. I have no idea why they would, but this fight was lost a long time ago.
I am TALKING ABOUT AND I MENTION SEVERAL TIMES CORPORATE AMERICA. The corporation is not gauranteed rights by the constitution. They may be through some legal fiction a person, even though their lawyers will tell you that isn;t true when you sue that "person", but they do not have constitutional rights.
Now what gives them the right to take away mine? It is a public place, I am asked to be here with the understanding that I will not be harmed or have my rights taken away from me, why is it ok to take this one. It is not an excercise of rights that is active against someone else, it DOES not infringe on someone else. It is less offensesive than smoking a cigar, yet you guys seem to believe that it can be taken away WITHOUT consequence at any time. WHY?
Don"t tell me apples and oranges and all thats other stuff. Give me firm case law or civil statute or municipal statute that says you can remove this right because you are a business.
And one that stands up to the most powerful line in the constitution...."shall not be infringed".
Also you guys that take the side of the constitution only preventing the government from infringe on this right. well why doesn't that apply to everything else? My company is incorporated and it is VERY careful to make sure that no one is offended except me. I still can't get a good answer.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:39:16 AM EST
Fine keep being stupid on purpose. If you hadn't slept through Civics maybe you'ld have a clue.

There are you happy now. If you can't understand the points here maybe it's a good thing your company doesn't allow you to carry. They better rethink that and extend it to sharp instruments.

The First, Second and most of the other Bill of Rights Amendments are restrictions on the Federal Government. Repeat after me, restrictions on the Federal Government. You got that concept. Good stop there.

Come back in a week after you got that and then somebody else will explain the rights of property owners on their property. The various civil rights amendments that forbid discrimination are relatively limited in their scope on the Federal Level. Most of the meaty anti-discrimination statutes are at the State Level. You can't discriminate by virtue of race, national origin, sex. You can for ugly, poor (by charging high cover charges), some clothes, no clothes, inconsiderate, etc. You can chew on that one too for a while. If you can't figure it out come back later.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 6:37:33 AM EST
Pa, can you turn down the bullshit a bit?
I asked a question, you may have a simple iron clad belief that this is real, but I am not seeing it. Clear?
Why does my company allow muslim prayer service on the grounds?
Why do they allow abortions funded by the company?
Why do they allow civil unions?

If the constittution is only binding on the fed, then why do corporations follow it and not strictly corporate law? Why can't a company do anything it wants in a free-trade zone?
What would happen if a company made carry mandatory?
In light of recent crap on TV, why do bounty hunters have to follow the fourth amendment?

We constantly look at Denver and say what a bunch of idiots, but if the city is incorporated then they could certainly deny all carry according to your arguments.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 12:33:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
Pae, you seem to keep twisting this, I may give you the private individuals right to try to disarm me on their property. I have no idea why they would, but this fight was lost a long time ago.
I am TALKING ABOUT AND I MENTION SEVERAL TIMES CORPORATE AMERICA. The corporation is not gauranteed rights by the constitution. They may be through some legal fiction a person, even though their lawyers will tell you that isn;t true when you sue that "person", but they do not have constitutional rights.
Now what gives them the right to take away mine? It is a public place, I am asked to be here with the understanding that I will not be harmed or have my rights taken away from me, why is it ok to take this one. It is not an excercise of rights that is active against someone else, it DOES not infringe on someone else. It is less offensesive than smoking a cigar, yet you guys seem to believe that it can be taken away WITHOUT consequence at any time. WHY?
Don"t tell me apples and oranges and all thats other stuff. Give me firm case law or civil statute or municipal statute that says you can remove this right because you are a business.
And one that stands up to the most powerful line in the constitution...."shall not be infringed".
Also you guys that take the side of the constitution only preventing the government from infringe on this right. well why doesn't that apply to everything else? My company is incorporated and it is VERY careful to make sure that no one is offended except me. I still can't get a good answer.



Corporations are legally "Persons," which has been the Constitutional standard since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886. As such, these persons may regulate what happens on their property exactly as would an actual human person, except in a few specific instances, mainly public accomodations that fall under the civil rights laws.

Since according to you no one, not even individuals, should be allowed to restrict any of my God-given rights, I am coming to your house tomorrow to shoot my guns into your yard, paint obscenities on your sidewalk, shout at the top of my lungs at 3:00 AM, and sacrifice a chicken on your porch. After all, you stopping me from doing any of these things would be gross violations of my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

PaDanby is correct: these only restrict GOVERNMENT action. Your speculation about Denver incorporating is specious, since even as a corporation, it would still be a government entity subject to the laws and constitutional restrictions on government action.


Why does my company allow muslim prayer service on the grounds?Their company, their rules.
Why do they allow abortions funded by the company?Their company, their rules.
Why do they allow civil unions?Their company, their rules. Are you seeing a pattern?

If the constittution is only binding on the fed, then why do corporations follow it and not strictly corporate law?Huh? Why can't a company do anything it wants in a free-trade zone?There are laws which stipulate what companies can and cannot do in these zones.
What would happen if a company made carry mandatory?Their company, their rules. I'd work for THAT company.
In light of recent crap on TV, why do bounty hunters have to follow the fourth amendment?Not sure I follow this one? What are you trying to ask? According to Taylor v. Taintor, an 1872 Supreme Court decision that has never been overturned, bounty hunters are not bound by the 4th amendment, since they are not government agents.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:01:45 PM EST
How come you guys have to be such asshats about this?
Pae, you give a wonderful explanation of exactly what I was asking. But you continue to act like I am some moron for asking where the rights of the sovereign individual end and the right of a fiction or the government begin. This is very damned important stuff and I wanted to understand why, I thought you guys could help and instead I got shit on and called stupid.

I don't live in the same fucked-up legalese world that some of youse guys do and I wanted some explanation. This is more difficult than tax law and I didn't even have a beginning set of written docs to start studying the problem. Is it ok to say that I had no tools for this problem or am I an idiot for that also?

Here is what I understand.
The feds are bound by constitutional and CFR. joke but that is the way it is supposed to work.

Business is a person for determining what they want to do, but not if the business gets in any kind of trouble. Officers of the business ARE mostly not responsible if bad things happen. Business is also able to take actions that private individuals can not do.

Private individuals are subject to the needs,wants,desires, rules, procedures,laws,codes,etc. of either the business or the feds. We have recourse of the courts against business, but not the feds, except in certain situations.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:26:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
Here is what I understand.
The feds are bound by constitutional and CFR. joke but that is the way it is supposed to work.Agreed

Business is a person for determining what they want to do, but not if the business gets in any kind of trouble. Not sure I follow. Busnesses cannot be sent to jail, but they sure can be held liable for criminal and civil misconduct.Officers of the business ARE mostly not responsible if bad things happen.This is one of the reasons for incorporation:Liability shielding Business is also able to take actions that private individuals can not do.Such as?

Private individuals are subject to the needs,wants,desires, rules, procedures,laws,codes,etc. of either the business or the feds.They are also subject to the "needs,wants,desires, rules, procedures" of private individuals when they are on the property of those private individuals. The federal laws apply everywhere in the US. These corporate or private individual restrictions ONLY APPLY ON THE PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL, or to those under their direct control, such as employees. We have recourse of the courts against business, but not the feds, except in certain situations.We have recourse against the feds in most situtations. As for businesses that infringe on your rights, your first course of action, before appealing to the Courts and the Constitution, should be to take your business elsewhere. If you do not like the restrictions your employer places on you, find other work. Or start your own business. But please, do not try to make a federal case of every perceived slight. Our Constitution was written to limit the actions of the government against its citizens. Private actions are not bound by the Constitution, except in very limited circumstances pertaining to civil rights.


Top Top