Keeper
NES Member
Not a solution.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MI-Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
Not a solution.
Yes it is about government and the anti's will force their will upon those they disagree with using government. MOMs demand and their ilk along with their wealthy backers are more than happy to intimidate business's into adopting no guns policies. They'll keep pushing until there's no place to go. No it's not about me it's about everyone's right to self defense which everyone has. Nice of you to be name calling. No poor you, you might have to allow people to protect and defend themselves and their loved ones. You obviously value material things over human life. I'd rather government not be in peoples lives at all but unfortunately they are and instead of upholding our rights they are all to happy to violate them. Tell me if a store had a policy in place not related to guns but it was a bad policy that led to injury and or death should they be held liable? GFZ, no guns allowed are bad policy.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,130
- Likes
- 1,789
They serve white's WHAT only?
Does that mean these could come back in style ?
Their business , their rules.
And you want Gov to enforce your will on those that disagree with you, hmmmmm.
Yes the would, they are, that is already the case, and as it's been said, this probably would apply to guns as well. So, no new law is nessisary.... Unless it's about you getting your own special law. You want to be yet another special class. Surprise you're not special.
And you have no right to another's property or service, so they can set a condition if they so choose, then it's a matter of you making a decision.
You cannot say you support people rights, and then say only when you agree with them, that just means you do not support the rights of others.
No you want to enforce victim disarmament. This law does not prevent a business from having a no gun policy therefore your right is recognized it just says that if you do have a policy that increases the odds of a mass shooting event occurring you can be held responsible. UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center
You brought up antifa in your prior post. I'd be willing to bet that antifa supports victim disarmament policies just like you do and not the right to self defense as I do.
Anyone that denies a persons right to self defense is saying that persons life doesn't matter. Gun free policies not only endanger gun owners but the public at large. No one should have to run all over creation to find a place that will recognize their right to self preservation. As I've pointed out before the anti's work hard at instituting victim disarmament policies in as many places as they can.
Yes, its been said and I replied to it but I guess you didn't read it. A lawsuit would cost the individual a lot of money which they may not be able to afford and even bring the case to court and if they do the courts especially in states like Ma. you would likely be out of your money. You obviously think you're special denying people the right to self defense. Self defense doesn't just benefit me it benefits everyone so it's not about me.
It's obvious your priority is property over life. Mine is not so I won't waste my time with you anymore.
You sir are incorrect.
There are anti discrimination laws on the books right now.
There are as, Mike tried to tell you Handicapped access laws.
There are sanitation codes.
There are fire codes.
There are building codes.
There are a multitude of rules and regulations any business must abide by.
Payroll , workman's comp , insurance.
Leave time , overtime rules .
No you don't just open a business and just do whatever the hell you want.
At least you admit you are supporting MORE government, even if it's already covered by existing law, you want more gov involvement, I'm sure you'll get it. Personally I'm for smaller, less intrusive government. But to each his own.
Really? Where did I say that? So you argument has degraded to outright lies.
In fact I said "You have to draw the line someplace." which outright says a business can't do whatever they want.
There are limits, I would not support a business where the owner hits people with a baseball bat if they didn't want to buy anything.
Also if someone doesn't obey the victim disarmament edict government enforcers will be called in to arrest the person that dares to want to be able to defend themselves wherever they go and they'll be dragged through the government legal system for it too.
I have this to say:
I would never even think about denying someone their right to self defense anywhere at anytime even on my own property. The only exception would be if they're committing a crime or acting in a dangerous manner than I'd contact the police and or use my right of self defense to stop their actions.
It's a shame that there are people that would deny others their right to keep and bear arms, especially any gun owners since they face a consistent barrage of people doing that to them, yet they want to do the same to others.
What type of person would want to dictate or deny anothers right to protect and defend themselves?
Tyrants/Dictators like to write and enact no guns policies.
I do not accept the fact that gun owners are second class citizen that should be discriminated against when it is neither acceptable or legal to do it to any other group.
Put a sign up in the window of your business saying" (Insert any color ,nationality or sexual preference here ) Not welcome" and you will be in a world of shit.
Your a free man (At least till the commies completely take over) and can resign yourself to being treated that way if wish.
Me , it pisses me off.
This also happens if you are asked to leave without a reason and don't. The have the right to refuse anyone for no reason at all. Just as you have the right to say who can and can't come on your property.
Nor would I
But they aren't. They don't want guns on their property, YOU are making the decision to either disarm and go on their property, or go someplace else. Take responsibility for your own choices.
Same kind of person who would take away a persons rights over their own property.
Lets see what does the property owner give up? They still posses the same property that they did before the person walked in armed. They can still listen to the same music, watch the same shows, they still possess everything they did before, they don't have to go elsewhere etc. The person that chooses to protect and defend themselves has to make a choice of disarming and being more vulnerable to attack or to having to run around to find a place that will allow them to protect themselves. If this elderly couple was armed you'd force them to disarm or go elsewhere:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtIwff6E_U
As I said before this law doesn't stop a property owner from a disarmament policy it just holds them accountable for putting dirt(property) over one's life if something was to occur.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtIwff6E_U
As I said before this law doesn't stop a property owner from a disarmament policy it just holds them accountable for putting dirt(property) over one's life if something was to occur.
I don't think most if not all people would choose property over life so I'd say it's not the same but some people consider dictatorial power over others more important than others lives. As I said before you can't possess property if you don't have life.
Seriously, how is it you can only see the world for what it gives/does for you and look at only your rights. The property owner gives up the income he would have gotten when you CHOOSE to go elsewhere.
Well you're getting closer, it is about you choosing.
But I have to ask, why would you continue to go to a place where you feel there is such a threat to you life that you would not go there without a gun? I mean, if I walked into a place and my first thought was "thank god I've got a gun" I'd never go back.
But that's the case without the new law! And aren't we always chastising the libs for pushing laws that make something unlawful "extra" unlawful. Like there is "violence" and "gun violence", crime and "hate" crime. It's just an attempt to make it extra special. This law, while civil not criminal, is no different. Try to have a little consistency.
The property own is setting a condition for the use of his property. YOU are making the CHOICE. If you feel you life is in danger, and you CHOOSE to go elsewhere, that is YOUR CHOICE. If you feel you are threatened (why would you go anyway) and you CHOOSE to disarm and go there. That is YOUR CHOICE. You see, it's all about you taking responsibility for your choices.
A little ironic that you, in MA, have to hide your gun after getting a permission slip, but I can OC and no one cares.
Seriously how can you defend victim disarmament? The right to self defense is not my right, it is everyone's right. Yes they sacrifice income while others have to choose to surrender their right to self defense to enter there or run around elsewhere costing them money and time.
Since a threat/dangerous situation can occur anywhere it's about preparedness. Why would anyone want to deny someone the right of self defense and why should anyone have to ask permission for self defense?
It's not making anything unlawful it's just saying if you have a policy that endangers public safety and an incident occurs you could be held liable. I've said it before but I'll say it again the expense and the court system especially in places like Ma. will just probably put a large financial burden and possibly financial ruin on the individual unless they win which is unlikely in states like Ma. and possibly elsewhere. The liberals support victim disarmament policies.
No it's not really someones choice. Being forced to disarm or to go elsewhere therefore a requirement to do something is not a choice. Just like it's not my choice to get the permission slip but if I don't I'll have government knocking on my door.
Ironic that you support gun control. Maybe if the anti's get their way of complete victim disarmament you won't be so pro victim disarmament policies anymore.
Yes but you'd use government to enforce your victim disarmament commands.
There is no "victim" here, except you seem to want to be seen as one.
No one is forcing you. You are never told you have to disarm. You are given a CHOICE. Keep you paranoia in check.
You take no responsibility for your choices, you say you have no choice, that's BS. You just want to blame someone else.
I made a choice. I moved out of MA. You could make a choice as well, but you prefer to blame others for you inability to choose.
You want others to be held responsible for your choices. I prefer to stand by my decisions.
You want your rights protected but you don't want other peoples rights protected (when they don't fit what you want), that makes you a hypocrite. And it's the hypocrites in this country, who want different rules for different people, who want only the rules they agree with, that are damaging this country. If you want rights to your property (and a gun is property) then you have to support other peoples rights to theirs. But go ahead and keep up the some animals are more equal than others, attitude. I'm making a choice to be done with your hypocrisy.
Disarming innocent people which is what these policies do is victim disarmament since in an attack they could very well become a victim of the attack. Instead of wasting time trying to convince us that victim disarmament is a right which it's not, you should be trying to convince victim disarmament proponents that self-defense which is a right benefits everyone because it decreases the chance of an attack. Allowing people to be armed does not deprive one of their property. It's obvious that dictatorial powers are more important to you than the right of the people to protect and defend themselves. I would say the one's that suffer from paranoia are the ones that are afraid to let someone armed on their property. The business owner is given a choice. They can recognize a persons right to self-defense or not but if they don't and anyone is harmed, not just gun owners they could be held liable. Without the right to life and the right to protect it you can lose everything else.
