Nobody is saying gun owners cannot go to the movie theater. They just can't bring their gun with them.

 

So property rights supersede individual rights then? Or just in certain cases favored by a particular segment of the population. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I like how republicans  conservatives can't get the difference between not allowing a gun in a store, and refusing service to black people.  I can only imagine how they'd react if a store put up a sign saying "No Christians Allowed"  (I'm sure they'll claim to be okay with that, but if it ever happened, they'd call it a war on Christianity)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It's ironic that you mention the "Wild West town". They had strict gun control measures. The Wild West full of crime is a historical myth

I should stop getting my Western US history from Westerns.

---

I like how republicans  conservatives can't get the difference between not allowing a gun in a store, and refusing service to black people.  I can only imagine how they'd react if a store put up a sign saying "No Christians Allowed"  (I'm sure they'll claim to be okay with that, but if it ever happened, they'd call it a war on Christianity)

 

You'd be right about a large portion of our population. You wouldn't be right about me or Eric (I think).

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Are old, non-white, disabled, non-Christian females forbidden from owning property on which to exercise their own rights?

 

Historically, yes

---

;

;

So property rights supersede individual rights then? Or just in certain cases favored by a particular segment of the population. 

 

The individual still has his/her right to bear arms.

---

;

;

Common misconception.  19th century mid-west towns had pretty strict gun control.  Much stricter than we have today.  The shootout at the OK Corral was because someone was carrying guns when they shouldn't have.  

 

Ironic that gun control caused a bunch of guys to get shot.

---

Historically, yes

 

Today? Or are we forced to forever bear the sins of our fathers?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The individual still has his/her right to bear arms.

 

Free exercise thereof? Nope.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the point he is trying to make is private property rights can't be used as an excuse to restrict access to constitutional rights while at the same time ignored in discrimination laws. If a business owner can say no weapons on my property for whatever reason why do they not have the same right to say no persons on my property for whatever reason or no lifestyle endorsements on my property for whatever reason. Personally I support letting private property function as they so choose. If a gay themed theater forbids guns I support that. For the same reason I support eliminating all discrimination laws on private property.

 

A ban on bringing a gun onto private property is not discrimination against a person, it's discrimination against what a person carries, which is reasonable if the object in question can be used to kill. The person may enter the premises, as long as they leave their guns behind.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Free exercise thereof? Nope.

 

Does the Constitution grant the right to carry a gun anywhere, or just the right to own a gun?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Does the Constitution grant the right to carry a gun anywhere, or just the right to own a gun?

The Constitution grants the rights for states to assemble militias.  The Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean "you can have a gun".

---

A ban on bringing a gun onto private property is not discrimination against a person, it's discrimination against what a person carries, which is reasonable if the object in question can be used to kill. The person may enter the premises, as long as they leave their guns behind.

Just like a restaurant or store doesn't have to allow you in if you're wearing a shirt with profanity or nudity on it. They're not infringing on your free speech rights. You can still wear the shirt but not on their property.

---

Today? Or are we forced to forever bear the sins of our fathers?

Well yeah. That's why laws like the Fair Housing Act of 1968 are in place.

---

I like how <del>republicans </del> conservatives can't get the difference between not allowing a gun in a store, and refusing service to black people. I can only imagine how they'd react if a store put up a sign saying "No Christians Allowed" (I'm sure they'll claim to be okay with that, but if it ever happened, they'd call it a war on Christianity)

I'd support it I think I'm pretty consistent on private property rights. I'd also boycott them and do everything in my power as a consumer to vote against them with my purchases.

---

A ban on bringing a gun onto private property is not discrimination against a person, it's discrimination against what a person carries, which is reasonable if the object in question can be used to kill. The person may enter the premises, as long as they leave their guns behind.

Which is fine, private property has the right to select who they will and will not serve.

---

Says the young white able-bodied Christian male.

Actually says the first generation Hispanic immigrant lower middle class blue collar mechanic. I am Christian so I fit in one of your stereotypes.

---

Actually says the first generation Hispanic immigrant lower middle class blue collar mechanic. I am Christian so I fit in one of your stereotypes.

 

Are you not young, able bodied and male?

 

You say lower/middle class. There used to be a practice by banks called redlining. Where they would not lend money to people in certain areas of town. They literally drew red lines on a map and did not lend money to anyone in that area. So would you be okay if you could not get a bank loan simply because of the neighborhood you lived?

---

;

;

Are you not young, able bodied and male?


You say lower/middle class. There used to be a practice by banks called redlining. Where they would not lend money to people in certain areas of town. They literally drew red lines on a map and did not lend money to anyone in that area. So would you be okay if you could not get a bank loan simply because of the neighborhood you lived?

Where have I suggested that would be ok, what you are implying however is that without state interference no one would approach the market. I disagree in a true free market there is no sector of the population left out its bad for business. Perhaps the loans and cost would be different but that's because of the increased risk.


My point was I'm for private property rights even when it doesn't benefit me or even when the discrimination offends me. You where making the accusation I only defended them because I'm a young white Christian male who doesn't face discrimination.

---

The Constitution grants the rights for states to assemble militias.  The Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean "you can have a gun".

 

Taken literally, the 2nd amendment says the federal government cannot infringe (interfere) with the right to bear (carry) arms. Any arms. The militia clause states a fact, it is not a rule, and there is no modifier that states the right to bear arms is dependent on having or needing a militia. If that were true 'Because' or 'As long as' would precede the rest of the text.


 

The 14th amendment extended the prohibition to state and local governments.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"