Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights

[g5000]

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

So do I. Unfortunately, the intransigence of bigots forced the issue and now we have a burlier federal government. They got the government they deserve.

I don't blame blacks or gays for federal government overreach. I place the blame exactly where it belongs: On the heads of the bigots, past and present.

You're talking about incidents from 50 years ago. Surely you dont think people are bigoted to the same extent today, right?

You bigots have shown you are. Every day. Right here on this forum.

Example:

Looks like it was written by someone 16 years old. Which is mentally about right for fags.

 

[Roadrunner]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Funny, my arms are mentioned in the Constitution, your right to plug your buddy in the ass isn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

So do I. Unfortunately, the intransigence of bigots forced the issue and now we have a burlier federal government. They got the government they deserve.

I don't blame blacks or gays for federal government overreach. I place the blame exactly where it belongs: On the heads of the bigots, past and present.

You're talking about incidents from 50 years ago. Surely you dont think people are bigoted to the same extent today, right?

You bigots have shown you are. Every day. Right here on this forum.

Example:

Looks like it was written by someone 16 years old. Which is mentally about right for fags.

That's a fail right there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Here is something else you may wish to consider.

Given the recent farce of a ruling regarding States rights and the gay issue, the ruling essentially says that each state must accept the license of every other state.

This includes conceal carry licenses.

Some unintended consequences going on right there.

No it didn't. You won't be hunting legally in NY on a PA hunting license anytime soon.

You'll forgive Me if I just ignore your amateur nonsense.

Is that your pussy-ass way of withdrawing your absurd claim that now all states will have to accept the licenses of every other state?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Funny, my arms are mentioned in the Constitution, your right to plug your buddy in the ass isn't.

Your semi-automatic pistols aren't mentioned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

it does indeed

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

State regulations on guns are constitutional. State prohibitions of gay marriage are now unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the slippery slope of the SCOTUS gay marriage decision is that now

polygamists will be able to carry concealed weapons anywhere they please?

 

[AceRothstein]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

 

[AceRothstein]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

 

[AceRothstein]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

States can refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. A fishing license or nursing license in one state is not necessarily valid in another.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

I dont know what that means. If I have a law license to practice in NJ it isnt good in KY, and vice versa.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

If that is true- which may or may not be- it is as true today as it was on Thursday.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

States can refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. A fishing license or nursing license in one state is not necessarily valid in another.

OK... and... what is the difference between one of those, a marriage license, and a license to carry?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

If that is true- which may or may not be- it is as true today as it was on Thursday.

It is, of course, true -- it is what the SCotUS ruled on Friday (in part).
And while it may have been conceptually true on Thursday the direct precedent was created on Friday.

 

[hazlnut]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Were you born with your gun attached to your body?


Apples and oranges, sparky.

 

[JGalt]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

Gun ownership is protected as is the right of the store owner to refuse guns in their establishments. To argue from the absurd, what if you wanted to bring a rattle snake into an establishment?

To take your absurdity to the next level of absurdity, why should any business owner allow service dogs or therapy dogs enter? More people are killed every year by dogs, than rattlesnakes.

 

[JGalt]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Were you born with your gun attached to your body?


Apples and oranges, sparky.

Always about the genitalia with you people, isn't it? No, I was not born with a gun attached to my body. But I was born with a document that stated I have the right to posses firearms.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that I have the right to buggery?

Liberals, always confusing the concepts of rights and privileges.

 

[PratchettFan]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Were you born with your gun attached to your body?


Apples and oranges, sparky.

Always about the genitalia with you people, isn't it? No, I was not born with a gun attached to my body. But I was born with a document that stated I have the right to posses firearms.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that I have the right to buggery?

Liberals, always confusing the concepts of rights and privileges.

That would be the 10th amendment.