30 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    Sorry, guys, but the US Constitution appears to put the rights of individuals above the rights of property owners.

    Damn. Let’s throw out the entire Constitution.

  2. Jace Walden says:

    Property owners are individuals. Property ownership and gun ownership are both individual rights. I don’t have a right to build on property you own, unless you allow me to. You don’t have a right to bring a gun on property I own, unless I allow you to.

  3. Carpe Forem says:

    I have to admit. I’m having a tough time with this one.
    Let me play devil’s advocate…

    Jace,
    I agree, you can ban me from your property. But once you allow me on your property, don’t I retain the right to defend myself… (speaking of simple, can you ban my fist). And if you do deny me my right to protect myself, are you then therefore, responsible for my safety and can you be held responsible if you fail (having some old geezer patrolling the lot doesn’t count)?

  4. Carpe Forem says:

    Just for the sake of argument and to reduce the variables let’s limit this to a private owned place of business open to the public:

    If the owner decides he has the right to ban guns on the property, isn’t this the same belief that gun control groups hold? By banning guns, violent crimes would be reduced. But in fact the only people that would be disarmed are the law abiding ones. Wouldn’t this hold true in this private property situation also, that only those that wish no harm would be the ones more vulnerable to get harmed. I don’t believe that a criminal gang set on robbing and taking hostages or a disgruntled employee would pause due to a sign being posted stating “no guns allowed.” Do you?

    I told you I’m having a problem taking a position here. I am a big advocate for private property rights, but I am also a believer in the individual right of self defense protected by the 2nd amendment.

    This issue isn’t all that simple to me. Maybe the line should be drawn between private property that is your personal residence and private property that is open to the public. I just don’t know.

  5. Icarus says:

    I’ll play along, Carpe

    “once you allow me on your property, don’t I retain the right to defend myself…”

    What if I allow you on my property, on the condition that you don’t bring a weapon? That’s essentially what we’re dealing with here. You feel you need a weapon to come on my property, I’ll ask you to keep moving.

    So, given that I’ll allow you on my property so long as you aren’t packing heat, what right does the state have to force me to allow you and your gun on my property?

  6. bowersville says:

    I know the question isn’t for me, but…

    “What right does the state have to force me to allow you and your gun on my property?”

    NONE

    What right does the state have to force me to allow a gun on my property?

    NONE

    What right does the state have to force me to allow you on my property?

    NONE

    Why? It’s my property and I make the conditions not the state. If you don’t like my conditions, then stay off my property.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Bowersville,

    You said this: ““What right does the state have to force me to allow you and your gun on my property?”

    The state does have an obligation to protect an individual’s Constitutional rights, regardless of whether that person is on public property or private property.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Bowersville,

    Can you kill people on your property?

    Can you abuse your children on your property?

    Can you shoot-off fireworks on your property?

    Can you use your property to produce meth?

    If the answer to any of these questions was “no,” tell me why…because, according to your logic, you can do anything you want on your property, including disarming law-abiding citizens.

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Senator Judson Hill introduced a bill yesterday that will allow licensed, carry-concealed persons to carry their guns onto the property of state parks.

    I’ll bet Bowersville and Icarus will have a problem with that. After all, a state park is owned by the people of Georgia.

  10. bowersville says:

    If I forbid firearms on my private real property, what makes a person who brings a firearm on my private property a law abiding citizen?

    If the NRA believes that a gun owner may travel onto an other’s private real property with a gun and that is an individual gun owner’s right, why hasn’t the NRA filed a Constitutional challenge with the US Supreme instead of lobbying Georgia?

  11. bowersville says:

    What is about a state park that makes it private property? Nothing and I have no problem with the senator’s bill, Bill.

  12. bowersville says:

    And Bill, if I were doing any of those things on my private property, WHICH I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT AND NEVER WILL, what make you think any one can come onto my private property and challenge me without a proper warrant stating probable cause and signed by a Superior Court Judge?

  13. Icarus says:

    “Senator Judson Hill introduced a bill yesterday that will allow licensed, carry-concealed persons to carry their guns onto the property of state parks.”

    Not only do I not have a problem with that, I support it 100%. State parks are not private property.

  14. Bill Simon says:

    Bowersville Sez: “…what makes you think any one can come onto my private property and challenge me without a proper warrant stating probable cause and signed by a Superior Court Judge?”

    If I witness you abusing children on your property, I ain’t waiting for “probable cause” to walk on your property WITH a gun.

  15. bowersville says:

    Bill, you are mighty loose with your allegations and what you alledge to witness. Now if you wish to make a definitive statement about what you will see on my property and asume the liability, by all means, it is your move.

    Other than that, f-off!

  16. bowersville says:

    That makes twice, twice, Simon has said Bowersville and child abuse in a response.

    Parsing the English as in consideration or making an allegation?

  17. GodHatesTrash says:

    It’s always a hoot to watch gundamentalist morons trying to have logical arguments – it’s kind of like watching a bunch of chimps try to screw a gaggle of geese.

    And methinks someone here doth protest too much…

  18. GodHatesTrash says:

    Got to hand it to Wayne – he’s made a lot of $$$ by realizing that you can always make an ignorant redneck even more afraid, even more scared, even more yellow than he already is.

    Boo!

  19. jsm says:

    The difference I see regarding the arguments here is the right to harm someone on my property versus prohibiting something or someone on my property. I do not have the right to harm someone else on my property. Prohibiting someone from carrying a gun is not doing harm, and in some cases, may be an effort to keep someone from being harmed.

    This is the same as an issue I had recently with a neighbor. He allowed his house guest to park on the bermuda at the edge of my front lawn, and I made very clear that I did not want the vehicle on my property. It was my right to have the vehicle moved off my lawn. No one was harmed, and my property rights were honored.

  20. Jace Walden says:

    Bill,

    You said that theoretically, state-owned property is the “Private Property” of the state.

    Well, realistically, you don’t know what in the heck you’re talking about.

    Only individuals can own private property. The state can’t. If you’re under the impression that the state can, I’ll pay for your ticket to the Soviet Union.

    Even Military Installations aren’t “Private Property”. It’s property controlled by the government so long as the people allow such control.

  21. Jace Walden says:

    Seriously,

    You love to paint people into a corner too, don’t you? If someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be either “Drunk” or “Stoopid [sic]”.

    Must be that Tech “logic” again.

Comments are closed.