Okay. Come on Texans. Who is with me here? I think that Texas should make a law forcing any property owner that puts a No Guns Allowed sign (30.06) should be forced to put this sign up beside it. LET"S DO THIS!

More laws? No thanks.. I can either choose to support the business or not & let that be that..

True, but I believe in choice and consequence. The law gives the business owner the choice to deprive you of your rights. I think there should be a consequence attached to that choice. Don't you think a business should be made liable if they choose to deprive you of your right to defend yourself on their property?

Exactly Jungleexplorer!!!!

Doesn't have to be "another law" simply add it to existing law that if you post your property/business with either 30.06 or 30.07 then this public warning must be also posted.....

You are proposing a law demanding that my business do something that I may not want to do. For example the bakery that was sued out of business because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Is that OK?

There are thousands of examples where new laws force business owners to go against their core principles. A business owner should make his/her own rules. The government has zero right to control legal activities on private property.

Yes, actions have consequences - but let the free market decide what businesses will fail or flourish. People who care about carrying their gun, already know exactly what both signs mean. As an avid gun guy, I won't spend my hard earned money in an establishment that doesn't follow my ethics and my code of conduct.

Besides, I am responsible the safety of myself and my family - not some business owner and his signs.

Respectfully,
Marc

You said it better than I did, but this is exactly my point.. Let the market decide which businesses survive rather than trying to shame the ones that don't operate the way you think they should..

If you choose not to patronize a certain business, how can it deprive you of your rights? However, if you choose to enter a gun-free zone you should accept some of the responsibility for what could occur on the premises.

So what you are saying is, business owners should be allowed to make choices to disrespect the Constitution and suffer no legal consequences for making this choice.

I see your point, but unfortunately your are comparing apples to oranges. Maybe you did not know this, but we live in the United States of America, and in this country we hold certain rights and principles higher then others. The founders wanted certain rights to be more Sacred the others. Among these Sacred rights is the "Right to Bare Arms". Unlike other newer supposed rights, like same sex marriage, that are found nowhere in the Constitution, the founders felt so deeply about the right to bare arms that they spelled it out and also added the words, "Shall Not Be Infringed". This strong wording means that this right shall not be touched. Basically, don't even look at trying to touch this right.

The Founders did not say this about same sex marriage or just about all other "rights" that have been instituted in the past 8 years under the governance of people who hate the very idea of the Constitution and sought with all their might to undermine it.

So while what you say makes sense in some cases, it does not apply here, because we are not talking about just any ol' other right here. We are talking about a special sacred right that is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution and is not supposed to be infringed by anyone. I don't believe that a business should even have the right to infringe on the right the bare arms, but since they do, I think there should be a consequence for a business owner who chooses to disrespect the very core principles of the Constitution.

Call me an old fashion patriotic American, but in this country the citizenry has the Constitutional right to carry guns. End of story. If business owners don't like that, they are free to move to another country that has gun control. The choice here is not for the consumer to choose where to shop, but for a businesses to choose where they want to respect the constitution or not. That is the choice here.

I just choose not to enter gun free zones whenever possible.

Your thought process is bypassing the most central theme of our entire constitution: The right of the individual. The second amendment may be the most sacred to you personally, but clearly not to the authors of the constitution. It is the right of the individual.

See your own second sentence that I highlighted above. The second amendment was inserted simply as a tool to safeguard the most important right........

Read our constitution again and you can't miss it - that is exactly why our founding fathers worked so hard to NOT make us a democracy. That is exactly WHY we have the second amendment: To provide the common man, the ability to enforce the right of the individual.

I am a shooter and a strong believer in the 2A principles. I carry and I believe in my right to carry. But you are saying that your right to carry trumps my right to stop you from carrying in my living room.

Understand that we are not talking about public property and THAT is the key difference. Again, the whole point of the second amendment is protect the right of the individual - and yet you would support a law to blatantly trample on all of the core ideals of our constitution.

The kind of thought process that believes that the government has the right to dictate what happens on private property, is precisely what separates liberals/socialists from folks who actually believe in the constitution.

Respectfully,
Marc

The choice is absolutely up to the consumer.
And no, I do not believe a business should be held liable for not allowing firearms on the premises.

The Constitution protects the individual. You wish to impose your will upon others which is not conducive to a free state.

You know what Marc. I really like you. I really appreciate that you are willing to have an intelligent debate about things and respond with intelligent arguments instead of just getting mad and shouting insults at me like a lot of other people on this forum have done when they disagree with me. I respect that quality immensely. It shows a true maturity on your part.

You are absolutely correct that individual liberty is a very strong cornerstone of our Constitution. But counter to what has been taught in modern times, I don't believe it was the founders intent for the idea of individual liberty to be interpreted as an excuse to do anything you want. As you said they did, "NOT make us a democracy". Actually, few people understand this truth and the fact that you do, gives me great respect for you. What most people don't understand, is that our country is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. It is not a man that is in control though, it is an idea that is in control. The idea that dictates to us is called the, Constitution of the United States of America. It is unmovable and unchangeable and does not bend to will or whims of the the people. While it can be added to (as long as the addition is agreement with the original intent) the original intent cannot be detracted from or altered. It is basically, the voice of the founders, speaking to us from the grave.

Once we understand this concept, it is there that we realize that in this country, we don't have the right to do just any ol' thing we want to. Yes, we have individual liberty, as long as we are respectful of the the voice of the Founders. In other words, we don't have the right to make this country into anything we want to. I like to say it like this.

"The founders bought the right to create a country in the manner they saw fit with their death and their blood. The price of creating a country to your liking has not gone down. If you don't like country the founders created and want to change it, you have to pay the same price they did."


What I am saying is this. I find it very disrespectful to the founders for a business owner to reject one of the the most important guaranteed freedoms they sought to protect. When you open a business, you are inviting citizens of the United States of America to come on to your property. You are asking them to come on your property. You are opening your property up and granting these citizen the right to come on your property. You should also respect their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Let me put it another way to you. Let's remove guns from the equation. Let's replace guns with "Individual Liberty". Do you think a business should have the right to ask you to leave your constitutional rights to individual liberty at the door? I bet not.

You and agree almost 100% on this issue. I think the one area that you and I might have a little difference, is that I see rights that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution as being Sacred and Untouchable and superseding all other rights. I don't see all rights as equal. I see some rights as superseding other rights. I don't think Americans have the right to do anything they want. I think they have to right to respect the Constitution and the founders intent.

I firmly believe that it is the duty of every single American to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America, not just the Supreme Court.


At the end of the day, I honestly believe that we should not even be having this conversation. I believe the right to bare arms should be emphatic and absolute through out the whole of America. There should not be a need to put up a sign at all because the government and all the people should automatically respect the Founder's intent and direction on this issue.



Maybe you are right that the law should not force them to but the sign I suggested. I can see your point on this. It would create some legal conflict in the courts and might be used as a defense to force business owners to do other things. But these business owners should be shamed to tears for not respecting the blood of those that have died to protect the idea that is the Constitution of the United States of America, that protects not only their right to individual liberty, but also guarantees our right the bare arms.

I would really appreciate it if you would watch this video to the end. I made this video after I laid my grandfather (a WW2 survivor) to rest at Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery. I made this video in his honor and for all those that have died defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvCiN-IQGwY

I do understand the sentiment. My grandfather fought against Hitler before the war, my Dad was WWII, my brother was in Vietnam and I have two family members serving now. I'm 63 years old and the constitution was taught in school way back when.

We both respect the constitution of our land and the true wisdom behind it. The key point that we diverge on, will cause us to argue in circles indefinitely:

1) You have made it clear that 2A gives you the ability to dictate what I do or don't allow on my own property.
2) I strongly disagree with that position and feel that 2A applies to public property/places only.

I don't have a choice but to travel/move about in public places. It cannot be avoided. 2A MUST apply.
I DO have choices as to what private property I CHOOSE to enter, knowing what the risks are.

Open/concealed carry has always has been appreciated in my home, my business and my land. Even before the new law was passed. But I have NO intention of ever voting to lose the choice given to me by the constitution to control my own property.

It is crucial not to lose sight of the basics: The core reason for the second amendment is to provide the ability to defend against others who would impose their will upon free men.

What I wish people would do, versus what I would force them to do are very different to me.

Respectfully,
Marc

I agree with you, but I guess I am failing to see how you are connecting Personal property (like your home) vs business property (your store). In your last two responses to me you have referred to your "Personal Property" like your home. I am not talking about your home. There is no question that you should have the freedom to regulate who comes into your home. But a business falls under a different category. A business is a place that the owner has issued a cart blanch invitation for citizens to come on. That is totally different then you own home where you require special permission before a person can come on.


Let my put it this way. When a business owner puts up a 30.06 sign, he is taking away a right from a customer. In this case the owner is requiring the customer to give up their right is they want to come one their property.

Earlier you made reference to the baker baking a cake for the same sex couple. But that is the total opposite of this situation. In that case the customer is requiring the owner to perform an action. In the gun case the owner is requiring the customer to perform an action, and in the cake case the customer is forcing the owner to pereform an action. Do you see the difference?

Let's take it one step further. Do you believe that the law should allow business owhere should have the right to put up a sign saying "No Homosexuals Allowed"?

To me a No Guns Allowed sign is the same as a "No Homosexuals Allowed" sign. Why? Because, while Homosexuals will argue that what they do is "Natural", it is an indisputable NATURAL human right to defend one self.

My problem with the No Guns Allowed law, and where your argument falls apart is, it is discriminatory. It discriminates again't my natural human right to defend myself.

You maintain that a business should have unrestricted authority to restrict who comes on their property and that is what justifys the 30.06. But that is not the way it is and you know. If you put up a "No Homosexuals Allowed" sign, you would be in sued out of existence tomorrow.

No, business do not have that right in many cases. So why do you believe they should be able to discriminate against gun carriers?

I will say here again that I am talking about business property and not your personal home.

I am really interested in hearing your response two this question.

Respectfully,
Victor

P.S. I an sick with the flu and miserable and on my smartphone, so forgive the typos. I actually agree with you, but I like talking with you and playing devils advocate. Hope you don't mind.

This is what our constitutional scholar in Abilene doesn't somehow comprehend..

Again, this is a distinction that makes no sense.. Both are Private Property, not Public.. And the property owners' rights to decide who enters their property outweighs your right to bring a weapon on that property.

You may not like it but by now there's no reason you shouldn't understand it.

The bigger issue you have is that the 2nd Amendment isn't an unlimited right.. You can't carry in most Government offices, schools, sporting events, etc.. You can't own a nuclear bomb or a Tomahawk missle.. In other words, there are limits to your rights..

I get that you don't like it. But again, you should at least understand it..

Personal attacks like these have no place in the arena of mature discussion. You are free to disgree, but there is no call for insulting me. Keep it mature and respectful.