Ponderosa Steakhouse in Ludington robbed

[Bailenforcer]

Wow you are a legal scholar in your own mind. So the Nazis were right since they were in power is your argument? Nice thought process. Your being someone who can plug in an Ethernet cord makes you a legal scholar? Then I must be all that because I hold an MCSE and a CCNP and that and 7 Dollars gets me a Starbucks here. get real little boy, make one valid point PLEASE! Oh I am thinking of finishing my study for my CCIE just for giggles even though I am retired now, so that would make me the best legal expert this site has according to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of this country's foremost experts on RIGHTS! And he is quoted by many other experts on rights. His not working for a despot in power does not negate his knowledge so quit being a moron. This statement you made comparing people in power to knowledge is EXACTLY why we need another bloody revolution to clean them all out from the top right to the janitors. You Nancy Pelosi school of intellect and logic is disgusting, I bet Hitler would have loved idiots to point out that anyone in power is automatically right, by virtue of that holding of power.

Damn dude is so intelligent a statement, and is so telling of your intellectual prowess.

Damn dude. I'm tired of you quoting a retired judge who has less current power in government than my pinky finger (I'm a civil servant and work in IT). What's more is, he never served in the Michigan Circuit. His opinion is just that, his opinion. Are you not intelligent enough to make your own reasoned argument without dropping someone else's name. I hope so.

Until you do, sadly, I cannot have a reasoned discussion with you.

 

[Bikenut]

Can't the same property owner simply un-invite any person? (Option #3 you didn't mention)

Without a valid invite (license to use the property) what does the person become? A trespasser?

What part of "with rights come responsibilities" is so difficult to understand my friend?

Property rights do not... cannot... and never will trump the simple "right" of every person to keep on living regardless of how important the property owner thinks he is. If that property owner were to be honest and honorable he/she/they would either respect every person's natural right to keep on living and not restrict their ability to defend themselves... or the property owner would accept the responsibility to provide said defense.

When a property owner opens his doors to the public inviting the public onto his property then it is the responsibility of the property owner to respect ALL the rights of the public.............. or, instead of the tired old argument that the public can go elsewhere, the property owner who is unwilling to accept that the public has the right to self defense can just not open his doors to the public!

Property rights make the property owner King of his realm (land) and I'm fine with that right up to the point where the King invites others into his realm. The key word here is "invites".... if you invite me in you get all of me and all my rights. Don't like it? Don't invite me in!

 

[TheQ]

Wow you are a legal scholar in your own mind. So the Nazis were right since they were in power is your argument? Nice thought process. Your being someone who can plug in an Ethernet cord makes you a legal scholar? Then I must be all that because I hold an MCSE and a CCNP and that and 7 Dollars gets me a Starbucks here. get real little boy, make one valid point PLEASE! Oh I am thinking of finishing my study for my CCIE just for giggles even though I am retired now, so that would make me the best legal expert this site has according to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of this country's foremost experts on RIGHTS! And he is quoted by many other experts on rights. His not working for a despot in power does not negate his knowledge so quit being a moron. This statement you made comparing people in power to knowledge is EXACTLY why we need another bloody revolution to clean them all out from the top right to the janitors. You Nancy Pelosi school of intellect and logic is disgusting, I bet Hitler would have loved idiots to point out that anyone in power is automatically right, by virtue of that holding of power.

Damn dude is so intelligent a statement, and is so telling of your intellectual prowess.

Someone needs to send you to a behavior school. Maybe you'll learn to debate in a more civilized way rather than basing your responses on criticizing your opponent who you indeed know little about. I bet you did well on the playground in grade school, taking kids half your age aside and pulling their underwear over their heads. Sadly, it's time to grow up.

As for my employment, I am a proud Libertarian Civil Servant. I'd rather there not be a need for my job and I'd be delighted if someday a Libertarian society eliminated the need for it. Until then, the State has extended a demand for my skillset into what we have left of a free market. I am supplying a service to meet that demand. As for IT, how about we just hire 5,000 times as many clerks to do the job that the 10 of us running this IT system does in a more automated fashion? I'm sure it'd do good things for the State's budget.

Want to eliminate my job and most others in State Government? Ok, cool. Unlike what Fox news fills your head with, I could easily make 180% of my current pay in the private sector. You see, most IT professionals in the State are actually UNDER paid by private sector comparisons. Why do I do it? The job security. It's a trade-off for me. So go ahead, get rid of my job. I'll just go make more elsewhere. The software I administer is used by a large majority of the Fortune 500 and is a highly specialized skill in constant demand.

Keep blowing sand out of your rear end. I have better things to do, like ski this weekend. Hopefully when we disagree next you'll have learned to be a bit more civilized and intelligent about debate.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Maybe we can open a store and have a prohibition to any civil servants, IT people, or idiots shopping there. I think I covered all the bases..

What part of "with rights come responsibilities" is so difficult to understand my friend?

Property rights do not... cannot... and never will trump the simple "right" of every person to keep on living regardless of how important the property owner thinks he is. If that property owner were to be honest and honorable he/she/they would either respect every person's natural right to keep on living and not restrict their ability to defend themselves... or the property owner would accept the responsibility to provide said defense.

When a property owner opens his doors to the public inviting the public onto his property then it is the responsibility of the property owner to respect ALL the rights of the public.............. or, instead of the tired old argument that the public can go elsewhere, the property owner who is unwilling to accept that the public has the right to self defense can just not open his doors to the public!

Property rights make the property owner King of his realm (land) and I'm fine with that right up to the point where the King invites others into his realm. The key word here is "invites".... if you invite me in you get all of me and all my rights. Don't like it? Don't invite me in!

 

[TheQ]

What part of "with rights come responsibilities" is so difficult to understand my friend?

Property rights do not... cannot... and never will trump the simple "right" of every person to keep on living regardless of how important the property owner thinks he is. If that property owner were to be honest and honorable he/she/they would either respect every person's natural right to keep on living and not restrict their ability to defend themselves... or the property owner would accept the responsibility to provide said defense.

When a property owner opens his doors to the public inviting the public onto his property then it is the responsibility of the property owner to respect ALL the rights of the public.............. or, instead of the tired old argument that the public can go elsewhere, the property owner who is unwilling to accept that the public has the right to self defense can just not open his doors to the public!

Property rights make the property owner King of his realm (land) and I'm fine with that right up to the point where the King invites others into his realm. The key word here is "invites".... if you invite me in you get all of me and all my rights. Don't like it? Don't invite me in!

One of the People's right is the freedom of speech and expression (1A). Does that mean I can go into Starbucks, buy a Lotte, sit at a table with a McDonolds hat and shirt on and hand out flyers all day about how I think their coffee is better and cheaper? All along -- the manager of the store can't kick me out because freedom of speech is my 1A right?

This is the same argument you present except it's about firearms, self-defense, and 2A. If you don't like a private property owner's policy about your rights, why not respect his property and rights and go patronize someplace else? The free market (if the Gov. ever shrinks away and lets us have a free market again) will sort out those who don't respect others' rights, including self-defense.

 

[TheQ]

Maybe we can open a store and have a prohibition to any civil servants, IT people, or idiots shopping there. I think I covered all the bases..

Wonderful! Feel free. I'll be sure to publish in the local paper about your bigotted ways.

I'll be sure to visit the competition. Their store is probably more intelligently managed and competitive than the one ran by you.

 

[Bikenut]

One of the People's right is the freedom of speech and expression (1A). Does that mean I can go into Starbucks, buy a Lotte, sit at a table with a McDonolds hat and shirt on and hand out flyers all day about how I think their coffee is better and cheaper? All along -- the manager of the store can't kick me out because freedom of speech is my 1A right?

With rights come responsibility... I have the right to free speech but I have the responsibility to use that right in a responsible manner. Hence it is my responsibility to not use my right to free speech to insult Starbucks` manager by engaging in insulting behavior.

This is the same argument you present except it's about firearms, self-defense, and 2A. If you don't like a private property owner's policy about your rights, why not respect his property and rights and go patronize someplace else? The free market (if the Gov. ever shrinks away and lets us have a free market again) will sort out those who don't respect others' rights, including self-defense.

Somehow I get the impression that there is a misunderstanding about rights and responsibilities.... it isn't that I have all the rights and don't have to respect the rights of others.... quite the opposite... it is everyone's responsibility to respect all the rights of all the other people.

Hence... if the property owner were to respect the rights of the public he/she would not restrict the right to defense of self... while I would respect the rights of the property owner and not come in and advertise for a competitor's business.

This "rights/responsibilities" thing is a two way street.

My reply is in blue.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Little boy you are the one who set the rules of engagement, you were the one making the insults as I avoided them. Your insults were completely baseless, and mine were directly on target to your own words. As a matter of fact you resorted to insults with no substance and all I finally did was to use your own words against you, so in fact you provided the material. NOT once have you ever refuted anything I said, all you have done so far is provide silly childish bards for weeks and when I finally dish a little back you resort to whining? Next time don't set the rules of engagement higher than you are capable of operating under.

You are the reason that many fled the Libertarian party! This Fascist mindset you hold that somehow liberty is run by the Corporations as opposed to the PERSONS described in the Constitution. I was in the Libertarian party before you daddy met you mommy. Many fled the party as it has been taken over by Fascists.

I put many of your Proud civil servants out of jobs because they were costly and inefficient and I alone displaced over a dozen of them with my own private business. I serviced most of the State DNR offices and the Federal USDA field offices to name a few State & Federal offices in Michigan, and I was also an IT professional and I kept their Telephone systems and Microwave communications network running. SO WHAT!

This was supposed to be a conversation about property rights and you still have yet to refute one point and I have asked you to countless times now, yet you keep dodging the issue with this extraneous bull sh*t.

Frankly I don't give a tinker dam about you feelings young man, this site is not about you nor your feelings.

How did FOX news have anything to do with your job? That was a stretch. Unlike you "I known thine enemy" and I watch what all sides say on an issue, and frankly not one news outlet is worth a spent bottle cap.

So you use popular software I am impressed, I use that crap too so what! Again you evade the point. Again this is not a thread about you, please get over thy little self.

Someone needs to send you to a behavior school. Maybe you'll learn to debate in a more civilized way rather than basing your responses on criticizing your opponent who you indeed know little about. I bet you did well on the playground in grade school, taking kids half your age aside and pulling their underwear over their heads. Sadly, it's time to grow up.

As for my employment, I am a proud Libertarian Civil Servant. I'd rather there not be a need for my job and I'd be delighted if someday a Libertarian society eliminated the need for it. Until then, the State has extended a demand for my skillset into what we have left of a free market. I am supplying a service to meet that demand. As for IT, how about we just hire 5,000 times as many clerks to do the job that the 10 of us running this IT system does in a more automated fashion? I'm sure it'd do good things for the State's budget.

Want to eliminate my job and most others in State Government? Ok, cool. Unlike what Fox news fills your head with, I could easily make 180% of my current pay in the private sector. You see, most IT professionals in the State are actually UNDER paid by private sector comparisons. Why do I do it? The job security. It's a trade-off for me. So go ahead, get rid of my job. I'll just go make more elsewhere. The software I administer is used by a large majority of the Fortune 500 and is a highly specialized skill in constant demand.

Keep blowing sand out of your rear end. I have better things to do, like ski this weekend. Hopefully when we disagree next you'll have learned to be a bit more civilized and intelligent about debate.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Even humor evades your simple selfish mind. It is always about you and the world in your tiny mind orbits around your little mind in rectal deffolades. Ask an Ostrich he will explain the latter.

Wonderful! Feel free. I'll be sure to publish in the local paper about your bigotted ways.

I'll be sure to visit the competition. Their store is probably more intelligently managed and competitive than the one ran by you.

 

[Bailenforcer]

dare I use the word Idiot?

Commerce laws apply here and limiting, interrupting, preventing or interfering with commerce is against State and FEDERAL laws, and your freedom of speech can not be used as a deliberate tool of destruction.

Again you deliberately miss the point because you have NONE!

You resort to the same old tired silliness of desperation that all fascists resort to by claiming they have a right to destroy and can hide behind a twisted interpretation of the Freedom of speech. If you are right slander and liable would be protected too, yet it is not, why so?

One of the People's right is the freedom of speech and expression (1A). Does that mean I can go into Starbucks, buy a Lotte, sit at a table with a McDonolds hat and shirt on and hand out flyers all day about how I think their coffee is better and cheaper? All along -- the manager of the store can't kick me out because freedom of speech is my 1A right?

This is the same argument you present except it's about firearms, self-defense, and 2A. If you don't like a private property owner's policy about your rights, why not respect his property and rights and go patronize someplace else? The free market (if the Gov. ever shrinks away and lets us have a free market again) will sort out those who don't respect others' rights, including self-defense.

 

[Bailenforcer]

The FREE Market concept as you see it, is right from Benito Mussolini's Fascist party. If you don't like it go away was their Mantra. Government will never shrink away it is a pervasive cancer and for anyone to claim to be Libertarian and be part of the cancer is beyond reason.

Yet after many countless posts you have yet to refute anything, you always resort to the child who wants to take his blocks and stomp his feet and go home so no one else can play with his blocks mentality.

NO one has a right to LIMIT the rights of others PERIOD! My rights in NO way limit a stores rights, but his prohibition is a DIRECT attack on my rights. And to bring a Corporation into the arena of rights is no less than saying my Buick has human rights as a Corporation is by definition a GOVERNMENT creation of fiction and admittedly so. So this would be to say Godzilla has rights, which is insanity because GODZILLA like a CORPORATION is Fictional by LAW.

You really need to wake up here and see the damage your argument causes, or maybe you already knew this? I suspect you do know this and this is why you refuse to debate points and keep regressing to baseless hypothetical situations.

If you don't like a private property owner's policy about your rights, why not respect his property and rights and go patronize someplace else? The free market (if the Gov. ever shrinks away and lets us have a free market again) will sort out those who don't respect others' rights, including self-defense.

 

[Bailenforcer]

Have fun skiing, hitting Boyne?

I have better things to do, like ski this weekend.

 

[TheQ]

My reply is in blue.

So basically some rights are more important than others?

Who decides which rights take the highest priority?

 

[TheQ]

Have fun skiing, hitting Boyne?

CaberFae. Don't come and shoot me, I won't be packing.

While being a reasonably good skier, accidents happen. I'd hate to fall and have my piece end up smashing my body apart by virtue of being there -- or the opposite of my body breaking the plastic frame.

 

[Bailenforcer]

DUH! The BILL OF RIGHTS! I posted that and you ignored it.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Notice there was a deliberate order and when you read the writing of the founders they state why there is an ORDER of importance of which right was FIRST!

You should have known this, I learned this in the fourth grade. This is why it called a "BILL" of rights. Notice below property rights are NOT listed. Do we finally understand why?

"A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights of the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement by the government. The term "bill of rights" originates from England, where it referred to the Bill of Rights 1689. Bills of rights may be entrenched or unentrenched. An entrenched bill of rights cannot be modified or repealed by a country's legislature through normal procedure, instead requiring a supermajority or referendum; often it is part of a country's constitution and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. An unentrenched bill of rights is a normal statute law and as such can be modified or repealed by the legislature at will. In practice, not every jurisdiction enforces the protection of the rights articulated in its bill of rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

So basically some rights are more important than others?

Who decides which rights take the highest priority?

 

[Bailenforcer]

Don't worry I won't shoot you I am not of a Fascist mindset.

Take care to not injure yourself. I will now stick to cross country skiing.

CaberFae. Don't come and shoot me, I won't be packing.

While being a reasonably good skier, accidents happen. I'd hate to fall and have my piece end up smashing my body apart by virtue of being there -- or the opposite of my body breaking the plastic frame.

 

[TheQ]

DUH! The BILL OF RIGHTS! I posted that and you ignored it.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Notice there was a deliberate order and when you read the writing of the founders they state why there is an ORDER of importance of which right was FIRST!

You should have known this, I learned this in the fourth grade. This is why it called a "BILL" of rights. Notice below property rights are NOT listed. Do we finally understand why?

"A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights of the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement by the government. The term "bill of rights" originates from England, where it referred to the Bill of Rights 1689. Bills of rights may be entrenched or unentrenched. An entrenched bill of rights cannot be modified or repealed by a country's legislature through normal procedure, instead requiring a supermajority or referendum; often it is part of a country's constitution and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. An unentrenched bill of rights is a normal statute law and as such can be modified or repealed by the legislature at will. In practice, not every jurisdiction enforces the protection of the rights articulated in its bill of rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

It's not that I'm unwilling to change my stance, I just need someone who understands and subscribes to Libertarianism to show me how from a Libertarian point of view we should use government force on this issue. I see no Libertarians forthcoming to do so...

 

[Bailenforcer]

The only use of force is the Corporation telling the Government to arrest and persecute me for my right to life and the defense thereof. If the Corporation obeys the Bill of Rights as any Government entity should, the Government created Corporation would be left alone. You refuse to face truth, this is where you fail to grasp the most basic concepts here. Oh and I was a Libertarian back in the 1970's when it was wildly unpopular to be one. We were called kooks and Constitutional wackos back then. A Corporation is created ONLY by Government it is a beast of the Governments choosing and without the Government there are no Corporations. Why do you or anyone incorporate? Answer is special favors, and in return you loose all your rights to that business, and instead of an OWNER you become a Chef Executive Officer who has NO rights, and only serves as a figurehead. Even a Chairman has NO rights and can and often are removed by Government bureaucrats for little or no reason in Constitutional law. They are NO longer subject to the Constitution by agreement, they now serve as serfs under several different Government agencies ran by nameless bureaucrats, like the FTC Federal Trade Commission, SEC securities and exchange Commission and a whole host of little agencies of control. Even stock holders have less power than the real owners (Government).

Here we went once again in a full circle, please address what I say for once and quit derailing the points with subterfuge. I am sad that you have been sold a lie of the Modern Libertarian which is nothing more than a Fascist. I wish you were there when us Libertarians started the movement going back in the late 1970's. Yes it was there before 1975 but it was nothing but an abstract concept. As much as I have read almost all of Ayn Rands books and own almost all of them I regret to say she was wrong headed on many points as well and sadly many Libertarians worshiped her and were afraid to call her out on her more fascist ideals.


back to work again I just installed a 3Com 2 port switch and matching 24 port hub in my house, need to get this all done today, lots of cabling to get done. I am also rewiring my Hubbell dual 48 port Patch Panel which is mounted in the basement on a structured cable foot racks. Blah blah and all that.. So you know the drill. Have fun skiing.

It's not that I'm unwilling to change my stance, I just need someone who understands and subscribes to Libertarianism to show me how from a Libertarian point of view we should use government force on this issue. I see no Libertarians forthcoming to do so...

 

[Bikenut]

So basically some rights are more important than others?

Who decides which rights take the highest priority?

Yes.. the right to life takes priority over all other rights because (warning! common sense about to be used!) without life all the other "rights" become moot!

No life ='s no rights what so ever.

So yes, the right to Life is more important, in fact is the most important right, than any other right.... including the idea that some self important property owner has the right to deny others the right to defend their lives.

But... please comment on the concept that with rights comes responsibilities. Do you believe that rights carry responsibilities?

Who decides which rights have the highest priority? See the above about "responsibilities".

 

[TheQ]

Yes.. the right to life takes priority over all other rights because (warning! common sense about to be used!) without life all the other "rights" become moot!

No life ='s no rights what so ever.

So yes, the right to Life is more important, in fact is the most important right, than any other right.... including the idea that some self important property owner has the right to deny others the right to defend their lives.

But... please comment on the concept that with rights comes responsibilities. Do you believe that rights carry responsibilities?

Who decides which rights have the highest priority? See the above about "responsibilities".

I believe entities (person or "legal person") bear the outcome of their choices. If you don't like a store's firearm policy you have 4 choices in my book:

1. Cover it up and pretend you don't have a gun (not an ideal choice).
2. Go in naked w/o a gun and accept the risks that cone with that.
3. Shop somewhere else.
4. Hire someone to run the errand for you who doesn't tote a gun.