Can a "Constitutional Carry" supporter explain this to me please

[AlexBailey]

GO FUCK YOURSELF

God Harpy, what an excellent example you are of the American Conservative mind.

 

[Comshaw]

I actually answered your question in a way that MOST PEOPLE would be able to understand but for you I will restate it: Its private property and they can dictate the rules.

Satisfied? (I bet not because this isn't about gun free zones, it's about you trying to engage in more blind hypocrisy of self.)

Hilary lost. She lost to the orange man. Get over it and start acting like a functioning human being for once in your useless pathetic life.

No you did not answer my question. In yet another attempt to circumvent what was asked, you answered a question that wasn't asked, one you wanted to, not the one I posed. Let me see if I can clarify it to a point where you can understand the question and will be able to address it directly.

Yes I understand (as anyone with a tiny bit of gray matter would) that since it's private property they get to dictate the rules. Additionally, you are right, it really isn't about whether or where gun carry is lawful or right. That subject was never raised nor intended to be. It was all about hypocrisy.

In this instance it just happens to be the insistence by the ones being highlighted that, on the one hand carrying a gun should not be infringed upon, while simultaneously declaring that while in their venue they will declare that “right” null and void.

From your inferred support for their actions I take it you agree that being hypocritical like this is acceptable? Talking out of both sides of their mouth (so to speak) is fine?

You have yet to address my question, or even attempt to do so. As part of a political movement that you whole-heartedly support, can you defend their actions? Do you have the reasoning skills to do so? Or will you continue to try to evade the question by misdirection and spraying vitriol as a defense?

As an exercise in humor I would be interested in your explanation of the connection between my post and your last sentence. While I understand you hate Hillary and blindly support the donald, the connection between your statement and my question evades even the most astute student of logic. Logically, intelligently, can you connect the two? Or will we be treated to yet another fit of obloquy from you?

TA

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Try this on for size:

The organizers of the events set the rules. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the rules for the venue.

Imagine what progressives would do if they had to make the same decision...

So ultra-conservative citizens ALWAYS obey the rules? Like on January 6th?

Comshaw

 

[siobhancan99]

I'm very much anti-gun and I can explain why their position is not hypocritical. Constitutional carry is wrong. It's a dumb idea. That doesn't make this particular situation hypocritical.


Constitutional Carry nutbags arguments are stupid for a lot of reasons, but they aren't stupid for THIS reason.

The Constitutional Carry crowd's moronic position is that the government should not be able to ban guns from places, because it is outside of the government's power. This is clearly absurd, since even speech (which alone can't kill anyone) can be subject to reasonable time and place restrictions. Despite that absurdity, however, that is their position. Their position as a general proposition with regards to real property is that those with dominion and control over that real property possess significant abilities to regulate conduct on that real property that go above and beyond that of the government.

It is, therefore, internally consistent to state that the government cannot ban guns from their rally on private property, but as the lessees of that private property (if only for a short term) they have a right to restrict conduct on that property. It is also consistent with how we treat other rights. I believe, for instance, that you should not be banned by the government from calling me the C word. I will fight for that right for you forever. I will also kick you out of my fucking house if you do it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me someone with the intellectual capacity to understand that the government has different rules to play by then private actors.

When you make arguments like this, you aren't "owning the fascists." They are, instead, smirking at you, and frankly rightly so. There are plenty of legitimate attacks on constitutional carry, like ignoring reasonable time and place restrictions. Further, you could legitimately point out that where the government has a compelling interest then it can regulate even the most sacred of rights (for instance it is not a violation of the first amendment to prosecute disclosing state secrets).

This is not a legitimate attack on the Constitutional Carry crowd and frankly, serves to 1) legitimize them in their own mind and 2) de-legitimize criticism of them in the minds of the undecided.

While this argument isn't as stupid as, for instance, a Constitutional Carry adherent believing in their heart of hearts that they're going to get off the rascal they ride around Walmart to save America from Russian invasion like "Red Dawn" is a documentary about the future, but wouldn't have time to get their 300 lb ass home to get their gun from the gun safe first... it's still not great.

 

[AlexBailey]

I'm very much anti-gun and I can explain why their position is not hypocritical. Constitutional carry is wrong. It's a dumb idea. That doesn't make this particular situation hypocritical.


Constitutional Carry nutbags arguments are stupid for a lot of reasons, but they aren't stupid for THIS reason.

The Constitutional Carry crowd's moronic position is that the government should not be able to ban guns from places, because it is outside of the government's power. This is clearly absurd, since even speech (which alone can't kill anyone) can be subject to reasonable time and place restrictions. Despite that absurdity, however, that is their position. Their position as a general proposition with regards to real property is that those with dominion and control over that real property possess significant abilities to regulate conduct on that real property that go above and beyond that of the government.

It is, therefore, internally consistent to state that the government cannot ban guns from their rally on private property, but as the lessees of that private property (if only for a short term) they have a right to restrict conduct on that property. It is also consistent with how we treat other rights. I believe, for instance, that you should not be banned by the government from calling me the C word. I will fight for that right for you forever. I will also kick you out of my fucking house if you do it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me someone with the intellectual capacity to understand that the government has different rules to play by then private actors.

When you make arguments like this, you aren't "owning the fascists." They are, instead, smirking at you, and frankly rightly so. There are plenty of legitimate attacks on constitutional carry, like ignoring reasonable time and place restrictions. Further, you could legitimately point out that where the government has a compelling interest then it can regulate even the most sacred of rights (for instance it is not a violation of the first amendment to prosecute disclosing state secrets).

This is not a legitimate attack on the Constitutional Carry crowd and frankly, serves to 1) legitimize them in their own mind and 2) de-legitimize criticism of them in the minds of the undecided.

While this argument isn't as stupid as, for instance, a Constitutional Carry adherent believing in their heart of hearts that they're going to get off the rascal they ride around Walmart to save America from Russian invasion like "Red Dawn" is a documentary about the future, but wouldn't have time to get their 300 lb ass home to get their gun from the gun safe first... it's still not great.

A lot of your post makes sense, however you didn’t address the point Comshaw made when he pointed out how the group says "'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!"

The question Comshaw is asking is how can you reconcile that statement with their banning of CC at their own events? You skipped over that issue.

 

[siobhancan99]

A lot of your post makes sense, however you didn’t address the point Comshaw made when he pointed out how the group says "'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!"

The question Comshaw is asking is how can you reconcile that statement with their banning of CC at their own events? You skipped over that issue.

Admittedly, that is funny.

As a practical matter, I believe that the restrictions generally come not from the organizer, but the actual event location owner. Where those restrictions are not imposed by the venue, though, Comshaw does have a good point.

 

[Comshaw]

A lot of your post makes sense, however you didn’t address the point Comshaw made when he pointed out how the group says "'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!"

The question Comshaw is asking is how can you reconcile that statement with their banning of CC at their own events? You skipped over that issue.

Admittedly, that is funny.

As a practical matter, I believe that the restrictions generally come not from the organizer, but the actual event location owner. Where those restrictions are not imposed by the venue, though, Comshaw does have a good point.

That's the point I've been trying to get 'harpy to address. If the organizers are so sure that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, that it is a good thing if everyone is armed, why then do they ban or allow it to be banned at their venue? If the property they rent for the event doesn't allow it, why do they support a business that does not support what they believe?

It seems to me there are several explanations here:
1) The property owners don't allow guns on their property and the organizers must concede to their demands.

2) The organizers aren't really concerned with gun carry, but use it as an issue to stir up those who do and raise money.

3) They see armed people in their rally as a threat and don't want to allow firearms in to minimize the chances of a lethal incident.

I'n sure there are others, but those come to mind. Item 1 isn't an excuse. It seems to me that if a person or an organization supports a position, they aren't going to support, monetarily, someone else that is opposed to that position. Unless they are too lazy or dense to find a place to hold the event that agrees with their position.

To me, I believe it is a combination of 2 and 3. They want to make the cash but also see a crowd full of gun carrying people as a load of dynamite waiting for a match.


Comshaw

 

[siobhancan99]

I think you're wrong. I think its 1 almost entirely. I am willing to guess that there are no venues where you can carry, because of the insurance.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case.

 

[AlexBailey]

I think you're wrong. I think its 1 almost entirely. I am willing to guess that there are no venues where you can carry, because of the insurance.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case.

Interesting point. I wonder how much of an influence that really is.

Having a swimming pool, lake, or pond at an event center can dramatically increase the insurance costs at an event center. In many cases an event organizer can get permission to have swimming only if they also provide a lifeguard.

It could be that some venues would allow CC if the event organizers also made safety provisions and paid higher insurance rates. There could be some places where the group is simply keeping their costs down. So #2

 

[phrodeau]

Interesting point. I wonder how much of an influence that really is.

Having a swimming pool, lake, or pond at an event center can dramatically increase the insurance costs at an event center. In many cases an event organizer can get permission to have swimming only if they also provide a lifeguard.

It could be that some venues would allow CC if the event organizers also made safety provisions and paid higher insurance rates. There could be some places where the group is simply keeping their costs down. So #2

What? Don’t those insurance companies know that the more guns there are, the safer everyone is? Allowing CC ought to lower the premiums.

 

[Comshaw]

I think you're wrong. I think its 1 almost entirely. I am willing to guess that there are no venues where you can carry, because of the insurance.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case.

Sorry but a negative can't be proven. How am I supposed to prove there are no venues that allow guns? I'd have to check every one of them in the area to prove your point, a thing I am not about to undertake.

You can believe anything you want, but proving your point is your responsibility, not mine. If as you insist none will do it because of the insurance reasons, then provide some proof or we can leave it in the realm of "might be true". Additionally, if what you claim is true, how do they put on gun shows? And they do have a lot of those.

Comshaw

 

[siobhancan99]

Sorry but a negative can't be proven. How am I supposed to prove there are no venues that allow guns? I'd have to check every one of them in the area to prove your point, a thing I am not about to undertake.

You can believe anything you want, but proving your point is your responsibility, not mine. If as you insist none will do it because of the insurance reasons, then provide some proof or we can leave it in the realm of "might be true". Additionally, if what you claim is true, how do they put on gun shows? And they do have a lot of those.

Comshaw

I'll just get on calling every one of 100,000 venues in the world.

I get it. You don't have a good answer for it so you're going to fall back on that. That's fine. Everyone knows.

Lets look at some things we both do know:

1) most of these spaces are owned by municipalities which do ban guns at the venues (convention centers etc). That's a matter of public record
2) those that aren't are often in hotels, and large chains like Disney, Marriot, Hilton and the like publicly do not allow loaded weapons in the rooms. That's also not a secret.

Is there maybe some fucking Elks club in buttfuck that lets it happen? sure. that doesn't make your point valid. "Ah but the fact you could have had your convention for 20 people at the Kiwanis club in Poughkeepsie instead of for thousands of people at a hotel in Miami if you had just taken the effort to call literally every venue in America shows you're a hypocrite" is not really a good argument.

 

[AlexBailey]

I'll just get on calling every one of 100,000 venues in the world.

I get it. You don't have a good answer for it so you're going to fall back on that. That's fine. Everyone knows.

Lets look at some things we both do know:

1) most of these spaces are owned by municipalities which do ban guns at the venues (convention centers etc). That's a matter of public record
2) those that aren't are often in hotels, and large chains like Disney, Marriot, Hilton and the like publicly do not allow loaded weapons in the rooms. That's also not a secret.

Is there maybe some fucking Elks club in buttfuck that lets it happen? sure. that doesn't make your point valid. "Ah but the fact you could have had your convention for 20 people at the Kiwanis club in Poughkeepsie instead of for thousands of people at a hotel in Miami if you had just taken the effort to call literally every venue in America shows you're a hypocrite" is not really a good argument.

Comshaw has a point about gun shows. They are all over the place, even here in California they are held at many public fairgrounds. The ones I've been to have a strong police presence though I'm not sure if they're there on orders or just because the cops themselves are interested.

So no. Guns are not outright banned in many municipal public places - or rather I should say that there are many such places that do not outright ban guns.

 

[jomar]

…

You keep avoiding the hypocrisy question.

Actually, the problem is that you think you're being clever in repeating yourself despite knowing that you've gotten your answer.

As I said: The venue is private property. The organizers at the venue set the rules, law abiding citizens obey the rules. What wasn't stated because it doesn't need to be stated is that Law abiding citizens also understand what the limits are when it comes to their Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They know this because they're well informed on the issues regarding all of their Constitutional Rights.

Unlike those who create stupid threads and/or post insipid comments ostensibly to try to show their superior intellect but which only prove beyond a doubt that they have not even the most basic ability to reason or think.

^^^ Concrete thinking at its best.

 

[siobhancan99]

Comshaw has a point about gun shows. They are all over the place, even here in California they are held at many public fairgrounds. The ones I've been to have a strong police presence though I'm not sure if they're there on orders or just because the cops themselves are interested.

So no. Guns are not outright banned in many municipal public places - or rather I should say that there are many such places that do not outright ban guns.

First off, ironically, loaded guns are banned at gun shows in Pennsylvania. I don't know about other places, but while you can have a gun on you, you can't have any bullets.

In fact a brief google search of the concealed carry crowd forums contains much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on this very subject.

 

[Comshaw]

I'll just get on calling every one of 100,000 venues in the world.

I get it. You don't have a good answer for it so you're going to fall back on that. That's fine. Everyone knows.

I don't have an answer, as it should be. I didn't make the claim that my guess was correct, you did. By not providing proof you're engaging in a Burden of Proof Fallacy. If you're uncertain what that is, look it up. Here, I'll help.
Number 11 on the list

And a "everybody knows" is false dichotomy. What you BELIEVE to be true isn't a proven fact, for anyone much less everyone.

And as an aside, sarcasm doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities, IE; you claim it to be true, you prove it. Without that your claims fall in the area of opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Lets look at some things we both do know:

1) most of these spaces are owned by municipalities which do ban guns at the venues (convention centers etc). That's a matter of public record

Yeah, no. We both don't know it. You are ascribing an opinion to me I don't hold. As Alex pointed out even in California they have gun shows. And two states north, along with California one of the most liberal in the nation, they do also. So they do allow guns in the facilities. I'm pretty sure they don't at any government organized event. In that you are correct.

2) those that aren't are often in hotels, and large chains like Disney, Marriot, Hilton and the like publicly do not allow loaded weapons in the rooms. That's also not a secret.

This you will have to prove. In my travels around this state I have NEVER read nor been made aware of such a rule in ANY motel or hotel I've stayed at. And I have stayed at a Marriott a few times while carrying a pistol, and have never seen nor been made aware of such a rule. This might be a regional thing, or limited to a few large chains like those you noted, but it definitely IS NOT an all encompassing rule for every motel/hotel.

Is there maybe some fucking Elks club in buttfuck that lets it happen? sure. that doesn't make your point valid. "Ah but the fact you could have had your convention for 20 people at the Kiwanis club in Poughkeepsie instead of for thousands of people at a hotel in Miami if you had just taken the effort to call literally every venue in America shows you're a hypocrite" is not really a good argument.

If one held a position strongly, would they try to uphold that position no matter the work it required? If not then whom ever holds that position really isn't very committed to it.

Your example of an Elks club in buttfuck is a good one, but it is erroneous. While that is your opinion of how it is, you have presented no evidence to substantiate your claim that no larger business would allow such a rally.

They really don't need a convention center or other indoor venue to hold such a rally. If that were true Woodstock would have never happened.

Back to this one though: if they don't allow guns in their venues, why do they allow gunshows?

Comshaw

 

[siobhancan99]

Back to this one though: if they don't allow guns in their venues, why do they allow gunshows?

ComY

You are being purposefully obtuse, and this is the problem. This is why you are doing a disservice to the cause of gun regulation, because it is apparent that you are disingenuous. Allowing unloaded guns is different than allowing loaded guns. Allowing unloaded guns at a gun show is different than allowing any yahoo to carry his loaded weapon around for all his MAGA hat wearing cronies to see how big his phallic replacement is. I understand that. Trumpers understand that. I'm willing to bet you understand it. So why pretend not to understand it and undermine the credibility of legitimate attacks on the open carry crowd?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Not the topic of the thread, but is DeSantis really so confident of reelection that he's going to be traveling around the country this fall?

Yes.

 

[HisArpy]

God Harpy, what an excellent example you are of the American Conservative mind.

Sorry, I work for the other guy. Please contribute the maximum to your local swear jar for trying to say otherwise.

 

[HisArpy]

No you did not answer my question. In yet another attempt to circumvent what was asked, you answered a question that wasn't asked, one you wanted to, not the one I posed. Let me see if I can clarify it to a point where you can understand the question and will be able to address it directly.

Yes I understand (as anyone with a tiny bit of gray matter would) that since it's private property they get to dictate the rules. Additionally, you are right, it really isn't about whether or where gun carry is lawful or right. That subject was never raised nor intended to be. It was all about hypocrisy.

In this instance it just happens to be the insistence by the ones being highlighted that, on the one hand carrying a gun should not be infringed upon, while simultaneously declaring that while in their venue they will declare that “right” null and void.

From your inferred support for their actions I take it you agree that being hypocritical like this is acceptable? Talking out of both sides of their mouth (so to speak) is fine?

You have yet to address my question, or even attempt to do so. As part of a political movement that you whole-heartedly support, can you defend their actions? Do you have the reasoning skills to do so? Or will you continue to try to evade the question by misdirection and spraying vitriol as a defense?

As an exercise in humor I would be interested in your explanation of the connection between my post and your last sentence. While I understand you hate Hillary and blindly support the donald, the connection between your statement and my question evades even the most astute student of logic. Logically, intelligently, can you connect the two? Or will we be treated to yet another fit of obloquy from you?

TA

Comshaw

I will attempt once again to penetrate the titanium shielding surrounding your intelligence.

LAWFUL gun carriers obey the law. THE LAW says that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private property. The OWNERS of said private property in this instance have the right to deny entry to persons otherwise lawfully carrying arms, they did so. LAWFUL gun carriers obey the law and disarm if they wish to attend.

Further, if you had ANY speck of moral decency, you'd admit that "no Right is absolute." Which, BTW, is something which is often said here on this forum and acknowledged by 2nd Amendment supporters. Further, the SCOTUS just issued a decision in which THEY SAID that the Right is tempered by our History and Traditions as understood at the time of ratification. Thus, restrictions on the Right existed at the time wherein arms were not permitted in certain places and/or at certain times, OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY if the owner of said property didn't want guns there.

Thus there's no hypocrisy here. What there is here is the extreme transparency in your pathetic little attempt to shape this as a 2nd Amendment issue without acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply AT ALL in this situation.

 

[AlexBailey]

Sorry, I work for the other guy. Please contribute the maximum to your local swear jar for trying to say otherwise.

Non-sequiter?

Are you okay?

 

[AlexBailey]

I will attempt once again to penetrate the titanium shielding surrounding your intelligence.

LAWFUL gun carriers obey the law. THE LAW says that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private property. The OWNERS of said private property in this instance have the right to deny entry to persons otherwise lawfully carrying arms, they did so. LAWFUL gun carriers obey the law and disarm if they wish to attend.

Further, if you had ANY speck of moral decency, you'd admit that "no Right is absolute." Which, BTW, is something which is often said here on this forum and acknowledged by 2nd Amendment supporters. Further, the SCOTUS just issued a decision in which THEY SAID that the Right is tempered by our History and Traditions as understood at the time of ratification. Thus, restrictions on the Right existed at the time wherein arms were not permitted in certain places and/or at certain times, OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY if the owner of said property didn't want guns there.

Thus there's no hypocrisy here. What there is here is the extreme transparency in your pathetic little attempt to shape this as a 2nd Amendment issue without acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply AT ALL in this situation.

You are still obtusely avoiding the point of the OP.

Can you focus on a concept without spinning? Comshaw is pointing out the irony of the pro gun lobby having events where guns are not allowed.

Do you think there is any irony in that? Do you understand what irony is?

 

[HisArpy]

You are being purposefully obtuse, and this is the problem. This is why you are doing a disservice to the cause of gun regulation, because it is apparent that you are disingenuous. Allowing unloaded guns is different than allowing loaded guns. Allowing unloaded guns at a gun show is different than allowing any yahoo to carry his loaded weapon around for all his MAGA hat wearing cronies to see how big his phallic replacement is. I understand that. Trumpers understand that. I'm willing to bet you understand it. So why pretend not to understand it and undermine the credibility of legitimate attacks on the open carry crowd?

Because the point is to try and throw shade wherever possible, even if you have to create a fictional tree to do so.

 

[HisArpy]

Non-sequiter?

Are you okay?

I'm fine. I'm also reliably informed that you are on "the list" for admittance to "Club Warm."

BTW, I was just given notice that you still haven't contributed to your local swear jar. That's not going to help your case. Just saying.

 

[HisArpy]

You are still obtusely avoiding the point of the OP.

Can you focus on a concept without spinning? Comshaw is pointing out the irony of the pro gun lobby having events where guns are not allowed.

Do you think there is any irony in that? Do you understand what irony is?

There's no irony except in your pinpoint brain.

The events are held at locations which are available. None of the locations allow arms. That's not the fault of the organizers, the speakers, or the attendees. Nor do they have a say in whether the owners of the venue allow arms or not.

The guns aren't relevant to attendance because the reason for attending is more important than crying about how stupid the property owner is. Meanwhile, the Left is still attempting to buy a gay wedding cake in Colorado while crying that it's their Right to force private citizens to do their bidding while chortling to themselves that gun owners won't act with the same heavy hand. Hypocrisy much?