[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hit this MSNBC poll (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/5/2014 10:21:24 AM EDT
|
Poll asking if Target did the right thing in asking gun owners to leave their guns at home.
Right now only 44% say Target is infringing on the 2nd. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-support-targets-new-firearms-policy left cold so they won't see where the votes are coming from and discount them |
|
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. Private business should be able to ban CONCEALED carry only if they can ban blacks and Baptists. What's under your clothes is nobody's business but yours. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment.
sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. Private business should be able to ban CONCEALED carry only if they can ban blacks and Baptists. What's under your clothes is nobody's business but yours. I wouldn't be so sure; GD seems to have quite a fascination with trannies. 
|
|
I'm sorry, but Target is private property and can do as they wish. We can shop elsewhere, buut with OCT and the likes of them pushing the way they are, Target was forced to make a decision on how to please the largest part of their market, and that is not us. They took the road most preferable to their main demographic.
It doesn't mean I like it, or that I will shop there, but it is their right to deny service. My rights stop when it interferes with others. While on their property, their rights in this case trump mine. You don't have the right to carry on private property if you are told no. Perhaps if we'd made a bigger effort at showing the responsible side of gun ownership and carry, things may have turned out differently. |
|
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. You nailed it. 2nd Amendment clearly places a restriction on the government. Private business, land owners, etc. should be allowed to dictate if firearms can be allowed on the premises. |
|
Quoted:
You nailed it. 2nd Amendment clearly places a restriction on the government. Private business, land owners, etc. should be allowed to dictate if firearms can be allowed on the premises. Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. You nailed it. 2nd Amendment clearly places a restriction on the government. Private business, land owners, etc. should be allowed to dictate if firearms can be allowed on the premises. There is no should. You have the right to tell someone not to bring a gun in your house. You have a right to tell someone not to bring a gun on your land. You have a right to tell someone not to bring a gun into your store, and so do they. No one has the right to carry on your property in any of these cases, and can be arrested for trespass if the do not leave. If you have evidence they were told before hand, and they still did, they can be arrested on more serious charges depending on state and local laws and statutes. If we want to carry on other peoples property, in their businesses, we must present ourselves as safe and rational people, and if not, expect to be denied. Hell, you act like a nut, or like Fatty and Snowboots of OCT, I wouldn't allow you, or any of your associates on my property. That is what OCT either doesn't get due to being severely brain damaged, or they do get, ans are out to damage the cause. The result is the same either way, less places allowing carry, and once the decision to disallow something is made, it is nearly impossible to get that decision reversed. |
Hit. Saw this poll from a FB post yesterday. . . we were winning this one 66%, now down to 45%
As a side note, Ghostery shows all these nifty trackers/cookies on MSNBC: ChartBeat DoubleClick Ensighten Facebook Connect Ghostery Privacy Notice Google Analytics Gravity Insights Krux Digital Media Innovation Group NetRatings SiteCensus Omniture (Adobe Analytics) Optimizely Outbrain ScoreCard Research Beacon Twitter Button |
|
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. Under the holy mantle of self interest "Property rights", correct? 
"Sorry your husband got shot, and couldn't defend himself and your daughter, but I had a sign posted, so it's not my fault he obeyed it and the criminal didn't." |
|
Quoted: sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. |
|
Quoted:
So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment.
sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Private property. Why do you hate freedom? Don't like their rules? Don't go there. |
|
Quoted:
Under the holy mantle of self interest "Property rights", correct?
"Sorry your husband got shot, and couldn't defend himself and your daughter, but I had a sign posted, so it's not my fault he obeyed it and the criminal didn't." Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. Under the holy mantle of self interest "Property rights", correct?
"Sorry your husband got shot, and couldn't defend himself and your daughter, but I had a sign posted, so it's not my fault he obeyed it and the criminal didn't." When you entered the property you released the property owner from liability by entering a verbal agreement of consebting to his wishes on his property, and placed it on yourself and the perpetrator. The property owner didn't commit the crime. Some of you people are using the same reasoning, or lack thereof of the anti gunners. If you want to test this theory, I will be happy to post my address right here, and anyone wanting to challenge the fact that m\y rights on my property trump yours, show up, and we'll call the county together. |
|
Quoted:
So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment.
sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Yep. Rosa Parks has no right to ride my damned bus at all, it's my bus, and if I let her ride she will ride where I tell her to. If she doesn't like it, she can ride someone else's bus. She can also tell all of her friends what an ass I am, and get support from a lot of my clients and force me out of business, or to change, or, they can start their own bus company. That is liberty. What many of you want is state mandated controls on businesses and private property. |
|
Quoted:
Wee. Todd. Ed. Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Wee. Todd. Ed. No, you agreed that your right to self defense was less important than where you were shopping. |
|
Quoted:
I have found that those who own no property have no concern for the rights of those that do. This thread reinforces that. So much fail in this thread. Indeed, which is one reason they were originally excluded from voting. As it is, non property owners should get a half vote, unless they have military service. Run the numbers on that and see how easily it would be to defeat every liberal and democrat put up for election. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment.
I voted that they did the wrong thing but its still their right to tell you that you can't carry. The 2nd doesn't apply on privately owned property. Your right to carry doesn't override the wishes of the property owner. |
|
Quoted: Yep. Rosa Parks has no right to ride my damned bus at all, it's my bus, and if I let her ride she will ride where I tell her to. If she doesn't like it, she can ride someone else's bus. She can also tell all of her friends what an ass I am, and get support from a lot of my clients and force me out of business, or to change, or, they can start their own bus company. That is liberty. What many of you want is state mandated controls on businesses and private property. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: fail poll - Private businesses should be a allowed to "ban" firearms in their stores, and doing so does not infringe upon the second amendment. sorry mate, the constitution protects you from government, not private industries So what your saying is, private industries can make Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus? Nonsense. People have a basic civil right to keep and bear arms, and that has to be respected, even by private industries. ETA: Any business that denies a visitor the right and means to defend themselves, should be 100% liable for any damages to that individual should a self-defense situation arise. Yep. Rosa Parks has no right to ride my damned bus at all, it's my bus, and if I let her ride she will ride where I tell her to. If she doesn't like it, she can ride someone else's bus. She can also tell all of her friends what an ass I am, and get support from a lot of my clients and force me out of business, or to change, or, they can start their own bus company. That is liberty. What many of you want is state mandated controls on businesses and private property. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but Target is private property and can do as they wish. We can shop elsewhere, buut with OCT and the likes of them pushing the way they are, Target was forced to make a decision on how to please the largest part of their market, and that is not us. They took the road most preferable to their main demographic. It doesn't mean I like it, or that I will shop there, but it is their right to deny service. My rights stop when it interferes with others. While on their property, their rights in this case trump mine. You don't have the right to carry on private property if you are told no. Perhaps if we'd made a bigger effort at showing the responsible side of gun ownership and carry, things may have turned out differently. This! |
|
Quoted:
An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You have no right of access. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. |
|
Quoted: Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. Quoted: Quoted: An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. |
|
Quoted:
No reason to. By your definition, if Rosa Parks enters your establishment, you can tell her to use the "colored's only" water fountain. You can also tie her up and make her a slave unless you can define where that limit finally kicks in with your "private property" power to take away people's civil rights. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. Go take you medications. I don't have a "colored only" water fountain. Tying her up and enslaving her would be assault and kidnapping. I see that you are not a property owner. Don't like my rules? GTFO. Ha, liberaltarians, gotta love them! |
|
Quoted:
No reason to. By your definition, if Rosa Parks enters your establishment, you can tell her to use the "colored's only" water fountain. You can also tie her up and make her a slave unless you can define where that limit finally kicks in with your "private property" power to take away people's civil rights. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. Tying her up and making her a slave is illegal, violates her rights, and would have me arrested for kidnapping at the least. It is also about the most stupid straw man I have ever seen, even on this site. You've really outdone yourself, and everybody else. Congratulations. |
|
Quoted: Go take you medications. I don't have a "colored only" water fountain. Tying her up and enslaving her would be assault and kidnapping. I see that you are not a property owner. Don't like my rules? GTFO. Ha, liberaltarians, gotta love them! Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. Go take you medications. I don't have a "colored only" water fountain. Tying her up and enslaving her would be assault and kidnapping. I see that you are not a property owner. Don't like my rules? GTFO. Ha, liberaltarians, gotta love them! Zero for four there. No meds required here, you failed to explain why legal restrictions on assault and kidnapping can apply to private property but the civil right for individuals to keep and bear arms in federal and state constitutions can be ignored (and just because you don't have a "colored only" water fountain, doesn't mean you didn't just endorse the practice), I'm a property owner who respects the civil rights of his patrons (unlike yourself apparently), and not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. Not that any of that matters though. Private property owners rights are not absolute, civil rights of individuals who visit private property otherwise open to the public can not be completely abrogated, and I'm confident that issue will continue to proceed with that recognition as it has since the "back of the bus" crowd first got served in the mid 20th century, with or without your enjoying it. |
|
Quoted: Tying her up and making her a slave is illegal, violates her rights, and would have me arrested for kidnapping at the least. It is also about the most stupid straw man I have ever seen, even on this site. You've really outdone yourself, and everybody else. Congratulations. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An all powerful absolute rights zone where civil rights evaporate... Amazing. And your liberty to take away other people's liberty when they visit... where does it finally meet its limit in your mind? Clearly Rosa Parks has to sit at the back of the bus in your world, do you also get to whip Toby so long as he willingly entered your establishment? Don't like the property owner's rules? Stay the fuck off his property, then. It really is that simple. You want to make your own rules? Buy some property. BTW, Rosa Parks was not on a privately owned conveyance. So, you can toss that argument in the trash. Tying her up and making her a slave is illegal, violates her rights, and would have me arrested for kidnapping at the least. It is also about the most stupid straw man I have ever seen, even on this site. You've really outdone yourself, and everybody else. Congratulations. ETA: Or is GD suddenly behind reversing the Heller decision? |