07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 147148149150151 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    That's more or less what is protected by prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.
    Could the government monitor your location? On a slightly different note, could the paparazzi stalk celebrities?
    11-11-2013 08:51 PM
  2. alexlam24's Avatar
    Does restricting open carry violate the Second Amendment?
    If it's clear and present danger it is

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    11-11-2013 11:17 PM
  3. newbroot83's Avatar
    No. Most businesses here are smaller and locally owned. I carry mine in walmart and other such places. I believe the restriction on the bar is to keep someone from becoming intoxicated and dropping or some other foolish thing and letting their fire arm go off in a public place

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
    11-11-2013 11:37 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    If it's clear and present danger it is
    Could a concealed carry weapon address a clear and present danger just as well as an open carry one?
    11-11-2013 11:39 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Businesses have the right to refuse service (and to reject permission to be on their property) for just about any reason they can dream of. They're perfectly within their rights to prohibit weapons
    Fairclough likes this.
    11-12-2013 03:45 AM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    No shirt, no shoes no service. Anyone remember those rules? I think it can be in the best interest of a business. They have a reputation to maintain and any conflict within the residence of their business would tarnish that name. Hence why they would want the right to refuse service to patrons with weapons to minimise the chances of that occurs.

    I think particularly of your under the influence of anything you should not be allowed near a weapon.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    11-12-2013 07:10 AM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Does restricting open carry violate the Second Amendment?
    On public property? One could definitely make a strong argument that it does.

    On private property? The person that owns the property can require whatever they want. Just like casinos can refuse to deal patrons that consistently win money. If a property owner does not want people carrying on their property, they are well within their rights to do so.

    Now for private businesses, The comes a little grey area. For instance the business has to have it clearly posted at all entrances that firearms are prohibited. Also, in Alabama and Tennessee, an employer can no longer keep employees from having loaded weapons in their cars. Even if the company policy prohibits firearms. It was deemed that employers were denying the employee's right to protect themselves too and from work by not allowing them to leave the guns in the cars at the company owned parking lot.
    11-12-2013 08:27 AM
  8. alexlam24's Avatar
    Guns good. Smeagol bad. MY PRECIOUS!!!!

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    qxr likes this.
    11-12-2013 10:45 PM
  9. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I wouldn't mind Internet access being a right someday. Sooner rather than later of course, and it would take some work (and money) to get the infrastructure in place for it.
    11-13-2013 04:23 PM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I wouldn't mind Internet access being a right someday. Sooner rather than later of course, and it would take some work (and money) to get the infrastructure in place for it.
    My general rule of thumb is the granting of a right should not infringe on those of someone else. Take the above quote for example. Let's say having internet was a right. That means someone HAS to provide. And probably do it for free because what if you refuse to pay for it? And what if no one was willing to provide it for free? Would you jail them? Provide government internet that forces higher taxes on others for your right?

    That's the kind of things we need to consider when debating granting rights. It's not fair to infringe on the rights of one group to give rights to another.
    King Howie likes this.
    11-13-2013 05:25 PM
  11. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    My general rule of thumb is the granting of a right should not infringe on those of someone else. Take the above quote for example. Let's say having internet was a right. That means someone HAS to provide. And probably do it for free because what if you refuse to pay for it? And what if no one was willing to provide it for free? Would you jail them? Provide government internet that forces higher taxes on others for your right?

    That's the kind of things we need to consider when debating granting rights. It's not fair to infringe on the rights of one group to give rights to another.
    I didn't say it would be easy, or even doable. Feasibility wasn't a stipulation in the OP. :-)

    I wonder how they do it in (I think it's) Iceland. Maybe it's just guaranteed access or guaranteed availability.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    11-13-2013 05:37 PM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    I didn't say it would be easy, or even doable. Feasibility wasn't a stipulation in the OP. :-)

    I wonder how they do it in (I think it's) Iceland. Maybe it's just guaranteed access or guaranteed availability.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    The city of New Orleans was actually going to do that themselves after hurricane Katrina, but the companies in New Orleans that supply internet access ie, Comcast, went ballistic, actually calling it theft of service, threatened to sue the city, so those plans were trashed.
    11-13-2013 06:21 PM
  13. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I wouldn't mind Internet access being a right someday. Sooner rather than later of course, and it would take some work (and money) to get the infrastructure in place for it.
    That would be pretty good actually. But how about we start with complete nationwide cell coverage as well. In the 21st Century, I should not have a dead spot anywhere.
    UJ95x likes this.
    11-14-2013 02:57 PM
  14. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Businesses have the right to refuse service (and to reject permission to be on their property) for just about any reason they can dream of. They're perfectly within their rights to prohibit weapons
    That seems to me like it is clearly discrimination.
    11-14-2013 02:59 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    That would be pretty good actually. But how about we start with complete nationwide cell coverage as well. In the 21st Century, I should not have a dead spot anywhere.
    Why couldn't that be how they accomplish the internet access? Solve both problems. :-D

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    11-14-2013 03:00 PM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Why couldn't that be how they accomplish the internet access? Solve both problems. :-D

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    Great point! I hope you were talking about high speed internet access though. It would be interesting to see how something like your idea would work out. Who would maintain the infrastructure and control of the services?

    posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors
    11-14-2013 03:12 PM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Great point! I hope you were talking about high speed internet access though. It would be interesting to see how something like your idea would work out. Who would maintain the infrastructure and control of the services?

    posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors
    I honestly haven't put much thought into it. I would guess whatever basic DSL service is would suffice for the guaranteed tier. As far as infrasctructure and stuff I have no idea. It would be great if the companies that run things now could continue to run things, and just get some type of compensation from the government. There are so many things to consider that I'm not sure it's realistic, but I would definitely love to see it happen. People smarter than me would have to figure all of that other stuff out of course LOL.
    11-14-2013 03:24 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    That seems to me like it is clearly discrimination.
    How so? It opens the door for the opportunity to be discriminatory, but your business is like your home when it comes to property rights. You get to decide who is invited and who is not. You can say, "you have to wear a shirt, you have to wear a bow-tie, you have to wear shoes, you cannot bring in food, you cannot bring in beverages, you cannot bring in weapons, you cannot bring in pets..." all of these things are perfectly acceptable in just about every business.
    11-14-2013 03:24 PM
  19. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I honestly haven't put much thought into it. I would guess whatever basic DSL service is would suffice for the guaranteed tier. As far as infrasctructure and stuff I have no idea. It would be great if the companies that run things now could continue to run things, and just get some type of compensation from the government. There are so many things to consider that I'm not sure it's realistic, but I would definitely love to see it happen. People smarter than me would have to figure all of that other stuff out of course LOL.
    That might work actually. I would hope that the companies would continue to develop their fiber optic network as well.
    11-14-2013 03:28 PM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    That might work actually. I would hope that the companies would continue to develop their fiber optic network as well.
    I'm sure they would. The free option would need to be fast enough to be usable, but not so fast as to kill the market. I think basic dsl is like 768k down right?

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    11-14-2013 03:29 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You folks might be willing to give up some of your property (money) to give someone else internet, but I'm not and that's not how rights work. If this thread is about rights in a fantasy world, that's another story. I kinda figured this thread was about rights in the real world, which means taking these things into consideration and may prevent your wanted right from coming to fruition.

    If you're talking right to something like the internet in the same sense as the second amendment, perhaps something could be looked at. No one forces you to buy guns, but you have the right to do so with your own money and not the taxpayer's. But something like high speed internet is already nation wide. You may not like the price or connection options, but many people don't like how expensive some guns are either and you don't see them asking for it for free from the government.
    11-14-2013 04:10 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    I would take a right to internet to be more valuable in the context of a free and open internet, free from government censorship and/or the abuse of information that traverses the web. We don't currently allow the government to open and read every letter we send via the post office, so why is that okay with e-mail? Why do a small handful of companies get to bribe the Congress to pass laws restricting the free flow of information and ideas? Sure, having a connection is great, if it's "free", okay... not sure about that part, but if the web is being locked up and kept tidy by the Feds, I'm not sure there's a need to be on it.
    11-14-2013 04:29 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Now that I agree to, but wasn't how I was interpreting the idea of the right to have internet.
    11-14-2013 05:40 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    How so? It opens the door for the opportunity to be discriminatory, but your business is like your home when it comes to property rights. You get to decide who is invited and who is not.
    It is an interesting situation with private businesses. Let's say that a shopping mall has a rule that bans weapons. A criminal attacks the customers with a pistol and manages to injure several people on mall property. Could the injured people sue the mall for a violation of their Second Amendment rights? That is, the people could have defended themselves if they were armed, but the mall effectively disarmed them, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
    11-14-2013 08:35 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    It is an interesting situation with private businesses. Let's say that a shopping mall has a rule that bans weapons. A criminal attacks the customers with a pistol and manages to injure several people on mall property. Could the injured people sue the mall for a violation of their Second Amendment rights? That is, the people could have defended themselves if they were armed, but the mall effectively disarmed them, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
    It'd be an interesting but short argument to make. Typically suits are aimed at those that willfully cause damages, not those that try to prevent it and are unsuccessful because of the unlawful actions of others. It'd be the same thing as if someone stole your car and ran someone over. You're not at fault for the car accident and attendant injuries, even if you locked your car to prevent theft.
    11-14-2013 08:41 PM
4,617 ... 147148149150151 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD