Quoted:
It is absolutely tyranny of the majority, it is mandating with law that a certain activity that the majority does not like be made illegal in virtually every place of public accomodation, simply because the majority finds said activity annoying. All of this in a market where all patrons and business owners have a choice about whether or not this activity occurs, and there are places that cater to both smokers and non-smokers.
|
The amount of "choice" we patrons have right now is a joke. The list you linked to is maybe one half of one percent at best - with ZERO locations here in Colorado Springs, a city of over 500,000.
It has nothing to do with civil rights, during segregation blacks had NO CHOICE about where to go, they were treated as second class citizens everywhere. They had no choice about being black. Today you have a choice about whether or not you smoke, and you have a choice about whether to go into a smoking or non-smoking establishment.
|
I didn't say it was a civil right issue, I used that as an example of another legal "attack" on the rights of property owner - and one that most people here would agree was a good idea. Back when that was debated, people made the same slippery slope argument about "rights" that you make today.
I can't walk into ONE bar or dance club anywhere in this town without being inundated with cigarette smoke. It is as much my right to enjoy a beer or shake my booty in public without my nose being attacked and my clothes coming out smelling like an ashtray as it is someone else's to smoke. They can still smoke, they just have to step outside to do so.
The parallel of this to assault weapons, or anything else we may both enjoy is that there are probably a lot of people out there that think I shouldn't be able to own an assault weapon, just like there are a lot of people (including yourself) that don't think one should be able to smoke in public (although I'm a non-smoker). If this group gets big enough then just like they passed a smoking ban, they can pass an assault weapons ban (like in California, another state with a smoking ban). It's about principle, and this kind of legislation sets a bad precedent, gunowners should be smart enough to stop ANY legislation that interferes with basic rights, afterall the basic right that brings us together is under constant threat.
|
You and I will have to agree to disagree. This legislation does not limit ownership in any way, nor does it say people can't smoke elsewhere. Any normal logic would have never made such a nasty habit legal in closed public spaces in the first place - it only was accepted due to tyranny of the majority "back in the day" when seemingly everyone smoked. IMHO, smoking is akin to urinating - it should not be legal to do it where someone else will have to "experience" your residue.
You mention California to further support your slippery slop argument, yet you fail to mention states like Florida and Missouri, who also have passed smoking bans but also allow concealed carry, Cl III, and "assault weapons." Your selective choice of states to compare Colorado to reflects your bias.
59bisquik: To keep this on topic - come to Colorado - we love our guns and have some of the world's largest "berms."