Originally Posted by Tyme
I hate that argument. It implies that private vs public property is binary, that if some land or property isn't literally owned by the public then the owners should have the same power over visitors whether it's a private domicile, or an open undeveloped field (on private land), or a typical open-to-the-public store, or something in-between like the American Legion or Sam's Club.
I don't think that's the right way to look at the question of private property rights. I think even membership-only clubs shouldn't have unilateral power to prohibit responsible concealed firearm carry, any more than they should be able to dictate what color underwear should be.
Actually, I think they should be able to dictate what color underwear your wear. Why not?
I should be able to hang a sign that says "We do not serve purple haired people, those with mustaches, anyone who wears tighy-whiteys or anyone who wears a belt." (Checking to see if you ARE wearing tighy-whiteys is another thing.)
If people don't like it, they can open their own bar. If they can't afford to open their own bar, they don't need to go to a bar. It's not a basic human right to go to a bar (or any other business). Self defense is a basic right. I can't prohibit self defense. I can prohibit swords, knives, mace.... etc. etc.... guns... It's private property. If I don't want it here, you can't bring it.
Whether or not it's wise to do it is another question.
Purple haired people also have the right to be mad at me and go somewhere else or picket and boycott or open a pizza shop with a sign that says "No one who goes to Peetza's Pizza Place is allowed here."
Let the market sort it out.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.