TexasCHLforum.com

I was done afetr the wife/rape post.

Are you suggesting that a woman potentially using a handgun to protect herself from a sexual assault in an isolated dark area is ridiculous, implausible, or in some way not worthy of serious consideration? If that's true perhaps women just shouldn't carry handguns anywhere at all and just leave the gun totin' to the men-folk.

One of the many problems with 30.06 is that is does INDEED often leave women in dangerously vulnerable positions (hospitals and government buildings notoriously use parking garages) and me and my CHL wife both have a problem with that. I thought I was done with this debate, but it sounds like you are marginalizing the threat of sexual assault, and that is the reason my wife got a CHL.

Embalmo

srothstein wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

The problem with this analogy is that we're not talking about private residences, we are talking about places that are completely open to the public, so as we enter these places open to the public, we are put in danger of becoming a victim of crime. As we all know, in reality, a 30.06 sign invites illegal carry and prohibits legal self defence. Let's get away from the "piece of property" mentality and look toward a reality like a dark hospital parking garage or a mall full of gang bangers.

Embalmo

Yea, and the "ideology versus reality" debate ultimately proves that 30.06 posted establishments welcome criminals with guns and forbids everyone else from defending themselves; which is why I see it as so discriminatory. I guess I should have begun this debate with the disclaimer that I am am absolute realist, and I abhor debating in the abstract. I often say that every liberal sentiment should begin with the phrase, "In a perfect world..."

Embalmo

I guess the most frustrating thing about liberal anti-gun sentiment is that if they don't want to carry a gun, they fix it so no one can carry a gun. I'm sure there's probably something in the constitution about having a fundamental right to bear arms. I think I read that somewhere; probably just internet conjecture.

Embalmo

frazzled wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I agree with embalmo and self preservation pre-exists tresspassing for thousands of years...since the begining of life itself.

Nonsense. Your right to preservation is fully served. Stay off the property.

I think that you are debating ideology versus reality. I wish I could choose not to go to college, or pick my child up from school, or rush my wife to the nearest emergency clinic, or walk in the the dark parking garage of the Texas Funeral Service Commission. When my wife gets raped in a 30.06 posted hospital garage, it's not really a celebration of private property rights, is it?

Embalmo

frazzled wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:

Embalmo wrote:In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

Your background check means jack. No one is stripping you of anything. You have the right to not enter private property. The have the SAME rights to their own property as they see fit. The right against trespass pre-exists your right to firearms by nearly 1,000 years.

Wow-Do you really believe that the background check means nothing for any of us here? And do you really believe that we have no basic human right of self preservation and a cop does? In reality, business owners cannot deny people because of their color, or religious affiliation, so why this? This is discrimination out of fearful ignorance and shouldn't be tolerated.

The "just don't go there" argument is invalid because it's not a matter of just not shopping somewhere. Not being allowed to enter a post office, hospital, university, public school, government building is not an option for any of us. Please don't start talking about Internet postage and and switching doctors because that is not realistic. What are we supposed to do, asked the folks to come out into the parking lot to conduct our business? This law needs to be changed before one of us, or one of our family members gets killed.

Embalmo

frazzled wrote:

Embalmo wrote:In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

srothstein wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.

I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.

Unfortunately if you post 30.06 you are assuming zero responsibility for my personal safety and putting me and my family at risk. As a business owner that is posted 30.06, you are are stripping me of my ability to protect me and my family to grant yourself a false sense of security out of ignorance. What if you denied me the right to carry nitroglycerin in my pocket for a heart condition because you "heard that stuff blows up", or my asthma rescue inhaler because you heard that the propellant was bad for the environment. A liberal would balk, but such meds, like a handgun, can make make the difference between life and death in the blink of an eye.

Embalmo

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo