testtest

My Fellow Texans are Letting Me Down!

bc22wm said:
(y) On the other hand it is my business and if I want to limit my customer base to left-handed, one eyed, bald, men of French Canadian decent, then I should have the right to be stupid. I'm really on the fence about this and can see both sides.
Now to cast aspersions/judge a book by its cover, "Alexander Testa, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Management, Policy, and Community Health at UTHealth Houston School of Public Health," Ya I'll bet that's a non-bias individual, that is above cherry-picking data and massaging the outcome. :rolleyes: With a title like that I wouldn't him(?)her to give me the correct time of day.
Click to expand...
In theory, sure.

But I am thinking more of discrimination angle.

A business can't legally discriminate access to it's business for race, religions, sexual orientation, etc...they are are all protected.

I don't see why we allow the 2A to be treated differently.

I do allow for two exceptions...actual, private business, or, rather, a club. Social clubs, Sam's Club/Costco, etc....becuase they aren't actually open to the general public, they are members only, and as such, it doesn't meet MY opinion of private vs. public. Again, just my opinion.

The other exception I make is for not forcing a business to promote somethign that goes against their own beliefs. Like the cake baker for a same sex wedding, just to use an easy example. A baker store shouldn't be allowed access for a homosexuals to not enter and buy premade products, but the customer shouldn't be able to force the store to CREATE a products for something that goes against their values, like a wedding ceremony. You may feel that's splitting hairs, but I stand where I stand.
 
PAGunGuy said:
In theory, sure.
Click to expand...
How about if it was just privet business's and not chains stores, franchises, and corp? I'm really not disagreeing with you, in fact I tend to agree wholehearted, but there is a small part of me that is a property rights fanatic/absolutist. And while we are at it no criminal penalties other than trespassing if one should refuse to leave after being requested to do so.
 
bc22wm said:
How about if it was just privet business's and not chains stores, franchises, and corp? I'm really not disagreeing with you, in fact I tend to agree wholehearted, but there is a small part of me that is a property rights fanatic/absolutist. And while we are at it no criminal penalties other than trespassing if one should refuse to leave after being requested to do so.
Click to expand...
what defines a "private business". If you allow the general public in, then, you're not private.

My opinion is that property rights extend to your domicile. But, that's just my opinion
 
PAGunGuy said:
what defines a "private business". If you allow the general public in, then, you're not private.

My opinion is that property rights extend to your domicile. But, that's just my opinion
Click to expand...
Okay I'm trying to be reasonable, and I do even agree to a great deal with you BUT you'll have none of it. So.... I own the land, I own the Building, I own the business, I'll serve whom ever I damn well please! Don't like it take your business elsewhere. I'm Out!
 
bc22wm said:
Okay I'm trying to be reasonable, and I do even agree to a great deal with you BUT you'll have none of it. So.... I own the land, I own the Building, I own the business, I'll serve whom ever I damn well please! Don't like it take your business elsewhere. I'm Out!I
Click to expand...
In theory, sure. But that's already not legal. There are already anti-discrimination laws in place. You can't refuse to serve someone just becuase of their race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation...there are already laws on the books that prevents that.

All I am saying is that in that same vein, those laws should apply to the 2A
 
Lab4Us said:
Texas’ Constitutional Carry rights
Click to expand...
Texas does not have constitutional carry, despite what the legislature called it. We have legislative carry, written into the Penal Code instead of the Texas Constitution. We're literally one D-led legislative session away from having that law repealed.

We NEED it in our constitution, but Paxton and the other RINO's don't want to not be able to be authoritarian and won't do it.
 
Onewolf426 said:
People who leave their guns unlocked/unsecured in their vehicles that are stolen out of said vehicle should be charged with some form of negligence. Vehicle safes for guns are not expensive or unobtainable. I have two, one for each vehicle that I use if needed. I also have alarms on my vehicles. The safes are stored under a seat or on the floor covered up with something.

If a business chooses to ban weapons on their premises, that is their Right. They also have a responsibility to ensure my safety while on their property. I, as a customer, have the Right to hold them financially and legally responsible if they fail to ensure my safety from harm while on their property. Slips, trips, falls, shootings, stabbings, etc are their responsibility. Their premises should be clear of any hazards, per OSHA, to protect me from a hazard. And, they should have, at the very least, a metal detector with security personnel at all entrances and exits to enforce their weapons ban. Failure to comply with that safeguard to ensure the safety of their customers leaves them responsible for the legal and financial consequences of their failure. This is why we have TSA screenings at airports. Same should hold true for any hospital, business and government building/agency that fails in their responsibility to keep us safe while on their premises. They should be held accountable for their failure to ensure everybody's safety while on their premises. If a company can be sued and forced to change their procedures for someone burning themselves with a cup of hot coffee provided by said business, then they can also be held to the same standard.

Their failure to implement proper safety and security protocols, and to be consistent with those protocols, leaves them open to the consequences of their negligence and failure. That is how this needs to be handled. It is your Right to make these decisions. It is not your Right to shirk your responsibility for your decisions, and it is OUR Right to hold you responsible for your decision, should our Rights and safety be infringed in any way.

I have no problem with a business, agency or hospital that bans weapons. This means that they are taking responsibility for my/our safety while on their premises. Either I will abide by their rule/regulation, or I will go elsewhere. However, if I or my loved ones are harmed or injured due to their lack of competence in ensuring that safety, they will and should be held accountable. With our Rights come Responsibility. Nobody should be free from those Responsibilities. Period.
Click to expand...
Exactly! There should be strict liability for businesses and government property that don't allow lawful CCW. If you won't let me carry for self protection then you just signed on as my personal protector!
 
Lab4Us said:
Their choice - IMO they should go out of business for their poor choices.
Click to expand...
I will always respect the property owners right to prohibit weapons on his or her property. That said, I do make it a point to shop at 2A friendly establishments. For example, the nearest grocery store to our home has a "No Guns" policy. So, I go about 1/2 mile down the road and shop at another one. (That's one of the perks of living in an urban area. There are lots of alternatives.) If I have to disarm, it is almost always to enter a place where weapons are prohibited by statute -- the post office, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, etc.
 
lkjohnson17 said:
I will always respect the property owners right to prohibit weapons on his or her property. That said, I do make it a point to shop at 2A friendly establishments. For example, the nearest grocery store to our home has a "No Guns" policy. So, I go about 1/2 mile down the road and shop at another one. (That's one of the perks of living in an urban area. There are lots of alternatives.) If I have to disarm, it is almost always to enter a place where weapons are prohibited by statute -- the post office, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, etc.
Click to expand...
I leave these when I can. Especially when they're open and see me stick it in their door, they think I'm a solicitior and come running to see what garbage I put there... then they read it.

No Gun No Money Card 100 Pack | Buckeye Firearms Association

What do you do when a business you frequent puts up a "no gun" sign? Get mad? Walk away? Passively disarm? Now you can express your opinion in a clear, persuasive, and non-confrontational way. Simply hand the owner or manager one of our No Gun No Money cards. On the front: Your “no gun” sign...
www.buckeyefirearms.org www.buckeyefirearms.org
 
Onewolf426 said:
,.People who leave their guns unlocked/unsecured in their vehicles that are stolen out of said vehicle should be charged with some form of negligence.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree! "Locks only keep an honest man honest." While agree with taking precautions, securing firearms, and do, I am 100% against charging someone for having something stolen because they didn't meet some arbitrary rule for storage. Let us keep our ire, solely for the one who has gone out of their way to earn it. The thief! No mitigation or soft soaping, no culpability for the robed, with "if it hadn't been..." COWPIES! What about the "he was a good boy, turning his life around" that steals prescription pain med and ODs. The car thief that steals a car because the keys are in it and runs over a bunch of school kids. If it isn't yours keep your booger diggers off it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top