Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[pt145ss]

The right to self-defense is god given. The right to keep and bear the best possible tools to those ends are man given.

[pt145ss]

That is 100%, completely, unequivocally untrue!

You don't know your Bible!!!! God established capital punishment. God established the first law. God established the Home, Government, and Church. When Nehemiah built the New Wall EVERY man had a sword and a trowel in their hand (carry at work). When the disciples did not have a sword he COMMANDED them to sale their coat and buy a sword. I should not even have to have a CHL or a license to exercise my right given to me by GOD and Government. So I am unequivocally RIGHT! In I Samuel 13 the Philistines had Israel destroy all of their weapons with the promise they would not attack. Eventually there was not even a Smith found to build weapons. After that happened the Philistines attacked Israel an all they had to defend themselves with was shovels and plowshares. Well if you fall into the category of trusting the Philistines want attack then throw away your weapons and get you some garden tools. Good Luck [/quote]

Ok...so God established that you have the right to keep and bear a sword for self-defense.

[pt145ss]

You are right…this is not a place for a theological debate but I would like to leave you with a few thoughts to ponder. God also establishes property rights. The 8th commandment says “You shall not steal� which clearly defines that my property is mine and you do not have the right to take it and do what you wish with it. The 7th commandment “You Shall Not Commit Adultery� is another reference to property rights. God said that the Wife’s body does not belong to the Wife but belongs to the Husband, and the Husbands body does not belong to the husband but belongs to the wife. As a result, Adultery is in fact a property right issue.

Then there is Romans 13 1 – 7 (see below) where it basically says that it is God’s will to establish governing authorities and that we must submit to them because they are acting on his behalf. This is relevant because our governing authority (established by God and acts on his behalf…according to the bible) has established that a property owner can deny entry to a CHL holder via 30.06.

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[CompVest]

The 7th commandment “You Shall Not Commit Adultery� is another reference to property rights. God said that the Wife’s body does not belong to the Wife but belongs to the Husband, and the Husbands body does not belong to the husband but belongs to the wife. As a result, Adultery is in fact a property right issue.

I think the above statement is just a little bit wrong (see the quote below). Spouses' bodies do belong to themselves as well as their spouse. I for one resent the very idea that just becuase I got married I no longer own my body!

1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

I also think this thread is way off topic and I apologize for taking it being further off topic, but I could not let that remark pass without a rebuttal.

[pt145ss]

The 7th commandment “You Shall Not Commit Adultery� is another reference to property rights. God said that the Wife’s body does not belong to the Wife but belongs to the Husband, and the Husbands body does not belong to the husband but belongs to the wife. As a result, Adultery is in fact a property right issue.

I think the above statement is just a little bit wrong (see the quote below). Spouses' bodies do belong to themselves as well as their spouse. I for one resent the very idea that just becuase I got married I no longer own my body!

1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

I also think this thread is way off topic and I apologize for taking it being further off topic, but I could not let that remark pass without a rebuttal.

1 Corinthians 7 – 4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

EDIT: When you Guys point to the bible to prove that carrying arms is granted by God...it's ok and on topic. But when i use that same bible to point out that God granted property rights...its off topic.

[bdickens]

The Bible is the word of God; it is not the words of God.

You guys need to read the Bible with a historical/critical eye and realize that it was written by men who were of their time. Only by understanding who wrote it and who their audience was can you then understand what they were trying to say. Then you can glean the wisdom that is there for us.

That's all I'm going to say on that, lest this whole thread get pulled.

Let's get this back on topic, please.

[aardwolf]

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I wonder what judgement Robert Morris, Roger Sherman and the other rebels brought on themselves.

[pt145ss]

So...thou shal not steal...has nothing to do with property? That is, after all, what we are talking about here...property rights vs. the right to self defense. Property includes real estate correct? That commandment clearly establishes a policy of private property.

Ok...so lets bar anything that i said before. Now, when the BGs came to take Jesus away and his disciples wanted to defend him and them selves…did he not tell them that it was wrong…if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. That was not a warning to the BGs that was a warning to his people.

[pt145ss]

I guess some people just do not like their own tactics used against them.

[pt145ss]

1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

BTW...I found some reference to the scripture you quoted and it appears that this is a revision to the original (the original appears to a more strict translation/interpretation) and I will withdrawal that from my argument.

That is one thing about the bible that I have a hard time with. The bible is a book written by man...not God. Not everything was automatically included in the bible. The contents of the bible was voted on by committee which begs the question…what was left out and why? The bible has been translated and retranslated many times…meaning of words have changed overtime and therefore have lost some of that meaning. The bible is open to interpretation and therefore on almost any given topic (not all but most) you could find scripture to support two opposing views on the same topic. It really is just a matter of faith.

Do not get me wrong, I do come from a family with religious convictions I just find it hard to have a logical argument when the arguments (for and against) is based on the bible.

[Keith B]

OK folks, we are WAY off topic here and this thread is about as hi-jacked as it can get. We can argue theology all day and get tons of different views (about as many as their are churches! LOL) but that is not on point to the OP's thread.

[bdickens]

Thank you.

[aardwolf]

Back on topic.

Businesses should be allowed to bar licensed possession of a handgun to the same extent they can bar possession of shoes, cigarettes, prescription drugs, (concealed) religious symbols, certain books/magazines/newspapers, iPods, foreign money, et cetera. Not just the overt use of those things but the mere possession of them (even hidden under clothing) on their property.

Looking at it another way. Suppose property rights are so strong that a property owner has the legal right to prohibit handguns on their property and the government can't pass laws to the contrary. If so, then a property owner also has the legal right to allow handguns (unlicensed, open carry, etc.) on their property and the government can't pass laws to the contrary.

[bdickens]

Good point.

I'll tell you what I learned in this thread. I learned why so little progress has been made on protecting the Second Amendment. We're all fighting among ourselves over property rights instead of fighting our common enemy. If we spent half as much energy defending the Second Amendment as we do defending the property rights of people who want to place prior restraints on the exercise of our 2A civil rights, we would all be wearing pistols on our hips out in the open everywhere we went and no one would even blink an eye at the sight of a gun.

[jimlongley]

I am sitting here envisioning the uproar ensuing if I owned a business and posted:

NO CELL PHONES, PDAS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELECTRONIC DEVICES ALLOWED

All persons caught in possession of such devices on this premises without the owner's specific permission will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law per section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code

Or some such thing - I'll bet it would make the evening news on four networks and TXscan.

OTOH, I could also post "NO NON-CHLs ALLOWED, be prepared to show ID."

I wonder how those would work.