Mayor asking Seattle businesses to go ‘gun-free’

Originally posted by Sharingan


I get a kick out of the Brits on this site that act like they have any business worrying about our Bill of Rights.
Seriously, has sh** to do with you.
You should be more concerned about breaking up another UK pedo ring, instead of our 2nd amendment

Two words you:

"International forum"

Dont like it go to a USA only forum

Anyway all I can see is a insecure American who cant refrute my point and cant stand a Brit know hes constitution better than him

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

And local businesses shouldn't be manipulated by Mayors running for re-election doing an end-around to try and bypass existing laws.

What? So what? Businesses set the conditions...ever read "no shoes, no shirt, no service?"

So if a business opt to choose to be gun-free...all of sudden you LOVE big gov? It's a "bypass" of existing laws?

Seriously...wherever you sit on the issue, the businesses have the freedom to determine who brings what onto thier property and tell a customer no thank you, please leave.

reply to post by Indigo5


I think you miss what the poster you quoted is getting at. Businesses have every right to deny service to you for having a gun on your person. However that should be a personal decision made by the owner of the business not something they did because the mayor said they should.

reply to post by HauntWok


Still don't get it I see.

The second amendment was about A LOT more than just that.

The right of the PEOPLE as the PEOPLE are the MILITIA.

Originally posted by neo96


The right of the PEOPLE as the PEOPLE are the MILITIA.

"well regulated" seems to be lost on you it seems

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by neo96


The right of the PEOPLE as the PEOPLE are the MILITIA.

"well regulated" seems to be lost on you it seems

So you call the military, the police, and criminals being better armed than then average John Doe Public ?

Yeah 'well regulated' is clearly lost on some.

Originally posted by neo96


So you call the military, the police, and criminals being better armed than then average John Doe Public ?

Yeah 'well regulated' is clearly lost on some.

It says "Well regulated miltia"

Are you denying it says that?

What I confer from that is that based on the context of the time when it was written is:

A) The militia is seperate from Military, Police and any fedral control so as to be a potent force againt Fedral tyranny.
B) "Well Regulated" confers that although there is no fedral oversight the public are expected to be well trained and organised in there use of guns.

So 2nd Amendment seems to confer that everyone has the right to bare arms BUT in a well regulated (IE safe and organised) way. NOT in a hap hazzard free unregulated GUNZ for everyone way.

reply to post by crazyewok


Why are you ignoring this ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only reason firearms are 'regulated' in the first place is because of the interstate commerce clause the second and ninth put expressed LIMITATIONS on that.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I think you miss what the poster you quoted is getting at. Businesses have every right to deny service to you for having a gun on your person. However that should be a personal decision made by the owner of the business not something they did because the mayor said they should.

It IS a "personal decision made by the owner of the business"??

The premise where a politician says something and private businesses immediately do it..cuz the talking head thought it was a good idea? absent any law?...just comicly fails IMO.

Do I think it is a good idea? Maybe...haven't really thought it through 100%...BUT I do think it is a good idea that business owners have this right...and even the ultimate guns-rights nut should agree that allowing private business owners that right is a good thing.

So.....

Originally posted by CB328
I'm glad to see some people having morals and guts to stand up for them. We need a lot more people and organizations in this country to stand up against the gun worship disease that is crippling our nation. I like how the gun people claim this will upset customers. Good luck trying to find gun fanatics in downtown Seattle.

seattletimes.com...

Could not agree more, i think the wrong people are in power these days!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Why are you ignoring this ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only reason firearms are 'regulated' in the first place is because of the interstate commerce clause the second and ninth put expressed LIMITATIONS on that.

I dont see the point.

"Well regulated militia" is not a seporate amendment but part of the same one

Therefore its pretty clear they are both meant to be linked

But arguing with you is pointless as you just want you guns without any of the other stuff the constitution implies.

reply to post by crazyewok


Intentionally being obtuse ?

What part of the Second, and the ninith are some people missing ?

What the hell does that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED mean ?

What the hell does SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHER RIGHTS ?

This can not get any more clear.

reply to post by neo96


And what does "WELL REGULATED" mean?

Why the hell put it in the same ammendment as the "right to bare arms" bit?

What its saying is the rights shall not be infringed as long as you follow the first bit. The first bit of a Well regulated militia going along side, not seperate or optional, as the right to bare arms. You follow them both.

Rights are not unconsitional or Prison would violate the first amendment and 2nd Amendment seeing as last time I checked prisoners are not allowed guns.

So its expected that a citzen perform some dutys or conform to some guidlines in exchange for ones rights. IE state level training and organisation in exchange for gun ownership.

reply to post by crazyewok

And what does "WELL REGULATED" mean?

It means the PEOPLE being on an equal footing as the millitary and the police and the criminals.

Anyone paying attention knows the people or the militia is not even close to being.

reply to post by crazyewok


What part of "Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by crazyewok

 

What part of "Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Originally posted by neo96



Anyone paying attention knows the people or the militia is not even close to being.

O thats something I do agree with you on.

Maybe that because at some point the idea of a well regulated militia was lost and lone wolfs wanting there guns without training or thought to there orignal purpose took over?

If the system of state and local militia were still maintained people could have pooled there resources to at least be on slightly better footing. Even if not equal to the military in any way they could at least be equaly to the police and domestic agencys.

reply to post by crazyewok


reply to post by neo96


The second amendment written in 1791.

Dictionary of the English Language 1792...

Regulate [regula latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

books.google.com...

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by neo96

 

And what does "WELL REGULATED" mean?

Allow me to stop you before embarassment is reached. The word "Regulated" in the 1700s meant something quite different than it does today.
www.constitution.org...

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

A "Well-Regulated Militia" meant that the government was to ensure that the nation had a properly equipped citizenry, NOT that the government was handcuffing/controling them.

Furthermore, if you want to start picking at hairs and get into the "The founders were referring to muskets" argument, as these conversations generally go, then I must assume you have no issue with such wonderfull horsecrap as the feds warrantlessly searching phones, computers, emails, telephone calls, etc, as none of these devices were around when the 4th amendment was penned. Similarly, you obviously wouldn't take issue with full censorship of TV and radio news, including prevention of any audio or video news stories which the feds find undesirable for the public to see because, as we know, neither of those "media" were around in that era so the founders certainly couldn't have been granting them Constitutional protection.

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by neo96

 

And what does "WELL REGULATED" mean?

Why the hell put it in the same ammendment as the "right to bare arms" bit?

What its saying is the rights shall not be infringed as long as you follow the first bit. The first bit of a Well regulated militia going along side, not seperate or optional, as the right to bare arms. You follow them both.

Rights are not unconsitional or Prison would violate the first amendment and 2nd Amendment seeing as last time I checked prisoners are not allowed guns.

So its expected that a citzen perform some dutys or conform to some guidlines in exchange for ones rights. IE state level training and organisation in exchange for gun ownership.

That is not correct. The Second Amendment does not require anyone to join a militia, nor is joining a militia a prerequisite for gun ownership. But don't take my word for it. Here is a professor of the English language that can thoroughly explain it:

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Now, if you can find a professor of the English language willing to stake his reputation on an interpretation that requires citizens to join a militia in order to bear arms, I'd like to see it.

----

As for the Mayor of Seatle, maybe he could set an example for those businesses by requiring municipal buildings and law enforcement to go "gun free." No guns in court houses, police stations, city jails, police cars, etc.