archy on May 01, 2007, 08:49:42 am


Perry: Allow concealed handguns anywhere in Texas

http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/86649.html

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram  | Apr. 30, 2007 | Jay Root

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, mulling ways to stop the kind of murderous rampages that recently left 33 dead on a college campus in Virginia, said Monday there’s one sure-fire solution he likes: allow Texans to take their concealed handguns anywhere.

Period.

Perry said he opposes any concealed gun-toting restrictions at all — whether it’s in a hospital, a public school, a beer joint or even the local courthouse.

“The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says 'Don’t bring your weapons in here,' someone who has ill intent on their mind — they could care less," Perry told reporters. “I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they're in church or whether on a college campus or wherever."

-more- http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/86649.html
Ah'm just a lowly salesman for the Deef Smith Greeting Card Company....

Rocketman on May 01, 2007, 11:32:11 am
As a libertarian I'm sort of torn between 2nd amendment rights and private owners of businesses prohibiting firearms on their own private property (Please note:  a college campus is PUBLIC property.)  A better way would be to create a petition stating until a person has the right to posess a firearm on your property then you will not do business with the company and get everyone in town to sign it.  My thought anyway.  :P
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 11:33:49 am by Rocketman »

archy on May 01, 2007, 04:25:43 pm
Just so. But when the existing Texas government maintains for itself the power to close the business for failure to pay state extortion their taxes, or for restaurants endangering the public health with contaminated food or from diseased cooks, then it would at least then be consistant for the same state power to require that those valuable taxpayers doing business inside be able to protect themselves- or that businesses which  deny that protection are a danger to public safety.

Shucks, you let one bunch of bank robbers come in and shoot up a few tellers and customers, pretty soon there'll be Mexicans crossing the border to try their hand at it. That makes it a matter of both insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defense.
Ah'm just a lowly salesman for the Deef Smith Greeting Card Company....

Rocketman on May 01, 2007, 08:50:55 pm
Problem is that if government uses it's (legal?) ability to shut down an anti-gun business by claiming a "danger
to public safety" then the people involved are just using the government to enforce their wills over another.  My solution of voluntary boycotting of the business at least mantains libertarian principals.

Frank Bieser on May 13, 2007, 10:13:06 pm
Just so. But when the existing Texas government maintains for itself the power to close the business for failure to pay state extortion their taxes, or for restaurants endangering the public health with contaminated food or from diseased cooks, then it would at least then be consistant for the same state power to require that those valuable taxpayers doing business inside be able to protect themselves- or that businesses which  deny that protection are a danger to public safety.

Of course, if you don't want the government controlling guns in the first place, then you really don't want them doing any of that other stuff either.  Allowing them to regulate anything just opens doors for abuse.   A government insuring public safety is contrary to promoting liberty.  The constitution's preamble is logical mess.


Leviathan on May 22, 2007, 08:54:56 am
Honestly?  The entire thing tends to be a logical mess.  The whole deal was a compromise of biblical proportions.  A coup against anti-federalists, who nevertheless still had a say in its shape.  People who were for and against immigration.  For and against unifying the shape of the governments of the various states...

What most amuses me about constructionalists is that they saw what happened to everything because of the powers granted by the constitution, but they want to "return" to that.  As if that won't just start the clock back at that point with a significant number of people who won't even care when five years down the road it just turns back into the garbage we have now.  I say we need to go further than simply returning to the "framers' intents".  We need to provide explicit provisions that prevent government from having the legislative power to do it again.

Not that we'll get the chance.  The one person who has publically stood up and said before such a broad audience, "Our interventionist policies are what make them hate us," has been accused of siding with the enemy and interpreted as saying we invited and deserved the attacks.  If opposition to interventionist policy draws this kind of criticism, what chance do we have of taking it a step further and opposing what many people (who usually haven't even ever read the constitution much less understood the bill of rights) consider the foundation of our nation?

Rocketman on May 22, 2007, 11:22:01 pm
Leviathan:
   Man o man did you ever hit the nail on the head!!  The only thing that the statists can do is argue with emotion.  The facts totally contradict their opinions.  Keep up the great points!!!

 

anything