Quote of the day—Samuel Adams

It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue.

Samuel Adams
[There was a time when the defenders of the Second Amendment were in the minority. We fought on, even those many believed it was a losing battle, in part because we believed it was the honorable thing to do. We are now winning.

This quote reminds me of the famous Barry Goldwater quote which is also quite good.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Samuel Adams

  1. Nope. Private property holders should have every right to post “No Firearms” signs and policies. Also the Police should have no right to get involved until a confrontation crosses into trespass or other crimes.

    Also by posting “No Firearms” the poster is making a point to supply a reasonable amount of security to cover for the disarmed patrons/guests.

    I personally think that Ft. Hood is a prime example of a property owner being sued for not supply protection in a “Gun-Free Zone” given that every person there was trained and competent in personal firearms (the M16 rifle at the least) and could have stopped the shooter during the attack had they not been disarmed.

    That being said, I don’t think any government-owned building has that right as it is NOT private property.

  2. It depends on the circumstances. What if the home owner association votes to ban guns in a condominium complex?

    On the other hand a oil refinery with a concern about stray projectiles creating a “high energy event” have a valid point.

    I’m not sure where or how to draw the line. A potential solution for many cases is the law a friend of mine got passed in Idaho. There a employer cannot be sued if they allow employees to carry firearms and an employee shoots up the place.

  3. “On the other hand a oil refinery with a concern about stray projectiles creating a “high energy event” have a valid point.”

    Hell that’s easy, make it like all the dense urban areas have around here. You can carry all you want, but discharging a firearm is illegal. That means the only caps being busted are by Police protecting the people, people protecting themselves and others, and people who have no respect for the law.

    Pretty hard to argue with that IMHO.

  4. I will argue (this is not to say that I’m totally convinced by my own argument) that the oil refinery has the right to set the conditions of employment such that they may totally prohibit firearms on their property by employees if they so desire. And of course they can prohibit non-employees from even being on their property.

    Somewhere in between the condo scenario and the oil refinery (where a “high energy event” from a single negligent discharge could kill a large number of people and potentially destroy billions of dollars in property) we have a gray area where a line would have to be drawn. I’m not sure how to draw such a line.

  5. I’m with Joe on teh oil refinery. When an “Ooopsie!” will reasonably endanger EVERYONE (not just “anyone” – an ND endangers those people standing teh way of teh bullet, a refining tower exploding endangers everyone equally for quite a fair distance)

    this is also how I feel about private possession of explosives, nukes, and hazardous chemicals. You want to store 50K L of liquid chlorine on your property? Okely-dokely. . . how much land do you have betwee you and the nearest neighbors or publicly accessable area?

    I feel that any facility that is considered “open to the public” must either permit lawful carry, or they must provide guaranteed to replace the security of the persons who they have forcd to disarm, AND the security of their property they have forced them to leave behind. In other words, if I get shot in your “No guns allowed” shopping mall, or my car is broken into and my gun stolen, then the property owner is wholly civilly liable, as they chose to unilaterally assume responsibility for my personal and property security when they decided to unilaterally prohibit me form securing it myself. And it matters not whether the damage to me is done bythe property owner, an agent of teh property owner, or even a criminal who is also preying on the property owner at the time. It doesn’t matter if I accidentally shoot myself while taking off my gun to comply with your disarmament demands, nor if I shoot myself while putting my gun back on when I leave.

    If you take away my ability to take care of myself, then you have assumed responsibility for that care, and are responsible for ANY consequences. Since I provide myself 24/7 personal security, ANYTHING LESS is a reduction in my security. (Got a trained, competant, armed, bodyguard for each and every one of your patrons over 21?)

    It’s not a revolutionary concept — it is the BASIS for suits on behalf of prisoners, the mentally ill, and so forth, when they are inured by a third party while helplessly in the custody of the authorities — the authorities have assumed responsibility for their safety, therefor the authorities have to do everything reasonable to keep them safe. It derives from teh concept of “in loco parentis”.

Comments are closed.