Jared's Jewelry Store

Status
Not open for further replies.
Going nowhere - we've discussed property vs. life into the ground.

That's an interesting theoretical debate governed by philosophy and evolutionary biases. Fun but no conclusions. My property, me king of the jungle. My life, tough, your majesty.

However, I do disagree with:

Suppose that Jared's arms and trains all of it's employees, and that while you're browsing for a Valentine's gift for the Mrs someone comes in waving a gun. You pull your ccw to protect yourself, but now you've become another potential bad guy. Could you fault the sales clerk for putting you down as well?
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful example that the antigunners used for NOT having concealed carry at all. What if the police shoot you also?

Stick with the king of the castle, jungle philosophy as compared to making a Brady Bunch argument.
 
Seems as though any argument limiting firearms either comes from evolutionary dominance traits or the antigun agenda.

I find it rather offensive that what I, and many others, consider to be a well thought out, carefully explained opinion, that seems to be backed by 200 years of legal standing, is passed of as nothing more than a primal urge in line within antigun philosophy.
 
er..what?

I'll note the primacy of Property rights are a key theme in the theories behind the Constitution and Declaration. Indeed, Locke's concept of Life, Liberty, and Property was well known by the Founders (and roughly stolen by Jefferson).

Further, on private property other rights: speech, assembly, religion, etc. are held in abeyance at the sufference of the property owner. Firearm rights would be no exception to that.

The right of property owners to mandate "leave your guns at the door" is as deep as the right of gun owners to not be forced to have to use that business.
 
Last edited:
My intensive training in psychology delves beneath what leads to various philosophical positions. Many traditions have long histories but that does not mean that they cannot be understood for what processes generated them. We are creatures of our evolution and experience - plus their interaction.

Nor does a long belief tradition mean they are useful in modern society.

I like
primal urge in line within antigun philosophy
Click to expand...
- it explains it well. You are free to disagree with that view. If you find it offensive, that it the way of the world.

My opinion, I state them! I will not agree with property bans based on an argument used by the opponents of gun rights. You are free to do so. You are on stronger ground with the property rights argument. If you don't want to understand why it is important to human psychology - that's your free choice also.
 
Going nowhere - we've discussed property vs. life into the ground.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I come down a little more on the side of property rights, but it's hard to say where the line should be drawn.

On one hand, I can bar people for behaviors (ie. what they do). I can tell someone they can't hand out political flyers or wear clothing with offensive slogans. I can refuse service to someone who's intoxicated or acting irresponsibly.

What I can't do is ban people based on what they are. Refusing service solely on the basis of race, age, or handicap will land me in court in a big hurry, and for good reason.

Now, is carrying a gun something people do, or something they are? That's the question in my mind. At the moment, folks carrying guns aren't a protected class. We may have such a definition at some point in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.
 
I don't like the policy, but I'm not in the market for jewelry either. Unfortunately we really need some sort of education drive, preferably one that starts with the schools. Most teachers are anti-gun liberals who foist their ideas on the impressionable younger generation. Well, here in the northeast anyway and it continues into college.

So what I'm getting at is we need a culture change in parts of the country. I've given up on the older crowd, their mind is set and isn't likely to change. But give younger people the facts and let them make up their own minds instead of being bombarded with anti-gun crap.

What does this have to do with the current topic, you have to change the minds of their customers and future executives if you want something that sticks. Younger people are more flexible in their thought process than someone who has been anti-gun for 40 years.:cool:
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I will not agree with property bans based on an argument used by the opponents of gun rights. You are free to do so. You are on stronger ground with the property rights argument.
Click to expand...

Seems like an odd position to take... I disagree with the groups conclusion, therefore any and all points which they might use to justify their conclusions are presumptively invalid. Invalid even in another context or perspective.

And I thought that WAS the property rights argument. What other argument have I made?

Oh, and any arguments made by products of evolution have no actual moral basis. They are neither right nor wrong, merely convenient social contracts. We might want to change them for our own perceived benefit but there is no place for any overriding moral imperative.
 
Oh, now we are off topic. Want to call and end. They have the right to sell junk.

I went into a Tiffany's that opened locality. The clerk (not spotting the gear under concealment) asked if I wanted to bring home some karats for the little lady. I said - If she wants carrots, I better stop at the market! :)

They did have some hard looking guy in a suit starting at everyone. Very impressive.
 
I must admit the last jewelry store I was was a James Avery store. I didn't see any signage, which is fortunate as both the wife and I are licensed and she was browsing.

I was quite nervous, as...she was browsing... :eek:
 
If it's really concealed, how will they know it's there?
Click to expand...

Some folks are scrupulously law abiding, and it matters not whether someone else is looking or not: they know they are supposed to follow the law, and do their best to abide by it. There are those who do what they think is right, laws be durned...... Then there are those that will do whatever they think they can get away with ...... what do your principles tell you to do?
 
I think we've said all that needs to be said here. Several times, in fact. As this isn't going anywhere new, it's going to be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top