‘Gun-Free’ Businesses Would Be Held Responsible for Shootings Under New Minnesota Bill

[Origanalist]

Lol. The game is already afoot. And they already do.

No $#@!.

[phill4paul]

Sure, but does it make sense to comply?

The question I always like to ask is this: if one of the state legislatures went apey and reinsituted Jim Crow, would you sit idle for it? I, for one, would not. I'd make sure and have dem'ole kneegrows over for dinner, eating from "whites only" dishes and all that. If the sherf wants to come and try and arrest me, we can dance.

At what point do you draw that line in the sand and say "no further!"?

We should have adopted a habit and culture of killing off any government agent, elected, appointed, hired, or contracted, who violated the rights of free men in the least measure. But we didn't and the woe is now upon us, and rightly so for we have forsaken ourselves and all that is decent of the human family for the sake of... well, what, really? An illusion of order, or safety, or good behavior in the face of false authority? We sold our souls to Satan for a mere pittance and now some of us rue the choices of our forbears.

I dunno pal, I'm thinking we took the wrong step years ago. To that spirit, I give you Hawkwind, but beware, it is a sad song:

Well, I guess that is why they call it concealed carry, and since violation is only a misdemeanor in these parts, if one were to be found out...I don't comply. But, that is in these parts. MMV in others.

[oyarde]

So everyone agrees i do not have to care if someone says I should not be armed ? looks like we are getting somewhere .

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a problematic solution. There is certainly a real conflict when private entities engage in infringements that the government can not. The Second Amendment says that the government can not infringe your right to bear arms, yet private entities can do it for them in many ways. Likewise, the First Amendment protects speech, yet private entities can for all practical purposes, block political speech that a certain faction or the government itself wants squelched.

On the other hand, it’s an extremely slippery slope to hold one entity responsible for the actions of another entity. Did you ban football helmets in your church? Is it now the church that is liable if someone hits you in the head? If there is an earthquake and something falls on your helmet-less head, is the church responsible? (Though it might be considered an act of god, which creates even more problems when it occurs in a church).

[Swordsmyth]

This is a problematic solution. There is certainly a real conflict when private entities engage in infringements that the government can not. The Second Amendment says that the government can not infringe your right to bear arms, yet private entities can do it for them in many ways. Likewise, the First Amendment protects speech, yet private entities can for all practical purposes, block political speech that a certain faction or the government itself wants squelched.

On the other hand, it’s an extremely slippery slope to hold one entity responsible for the actions of another entity. Did you ban football helmets in your church? Is it now the church that is liable if someone hits you in the head? If there is an earthquake and something falls on your helmet-less head, is the church responsible? (Though it might be considered an act of god, which creates even more problems when it occurs in a church).

A helmet ban doesn't invite criminals to come and give the church members concussions.

A store is a source of money and valuables and advertising a policy of no guns is an invitation to criminals.

[osan]

So everyone agrees i do not have to care if someone says I should not be armed ? looks like we are getting somewhere .

I go armed everywhere. Period. Even the post office.