Landlords beware, your next tenant may want to walk the hallways of your apartment building like Clint Eastwood, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Packin' in the parking lots.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 20, 2005 at 04:48am.]
"You don't just get to willy nilly infringe upon others rights."
I don't find this "willy nilly" or arbitrary at all. It's not about someone's ethnicity or religion. This is about dangerous material possessed by tenants.
"Same could be said for not allowing Liberals to live in his building."
I don't find this "willy nilly" or arbitrary at all.
Really? The best reason you could give me is "want". That's pretty damn willy nilly if you ask me.
It's not about someone's ethnicity or religion. This is about dangerous material possessed by tenants.
How do you differentiate from other dangerous material (other than "want")? Do you also ban cleaning chemicals? Prescription drugs? Swimming pools? Automobiles? Kitchen knives, baseball bats, and sharp pointy sticks?...
No.
Why not? He doesn't "want" Liberals on his property!
"Do you also ban cleaning chemicals? Prescription drugs? Swimming pools? Automobiles? Kitchen knives, baseball bats, and sharp pointy sticks?..."
Nope. And in this instance you obviously don't care about the ability of property owners to set rules for their own property. This should rammed down their throat.
Nowhere have I said property owners don't have rights.
They simply don't have a right to infringe on others rights.
You can't even provide me with what right a property owner has other than "want". Which if we use that as our standard, he should also be allowed to ban Liberals from his property, because he "wants" to.
You attempted to use "they're dangerous", but they are no more so than many common household items.
We've all got to deal with things all the time we don't like.
You conservatives are all for the individual, until it conflicts with your pet causes.
I am for the individual, it's you that's not. I'm for the rights of both the property owner and the gun carrier, as long as neither is infringing upon the rights of the other.
You've yet to tell me exactly what property right is being violated by having to allow people to carry their gun (other than "want").
That's one for the books.
Background checks before you can clean the bathroom?
You missed the point.
Your main argument thusfar has been that they're dangerous. Well, lots of things are dangerous when misused. Swimming pools are far more dangerous to a child than a .44 in the home.
Govenment can't violate rights. But two private citizens aren't free to negotiate their own agreements? It's done all the time. An employee under contract with a company can't say whatever they want and do what they want and then claim First Amendmant rights while on the job.
You can't walk into your office on the job and place a loaded pistol on your desk. You can't cliam Second Amendmant rights to do that.
It's still pretty weak if you ask me, and more importantly it's pretty sad you're willing to infringe upon someone's right because you "want" to (under the farce of the right to negotiate a contract).
I go back to why shouldn't I be able to not allow Liberals to rent from me?
As a property owner, should I be able to remove Wellstone signs from my tenants windows?
I say no. Because my right should not infringe upon their rights.
A property owner should be able to rent to anyone he chooses and to refuse to rent to anyone he chooses. If he doesn't want pets or children or gun owners or blacks or gays or unmarried couples or people on welfare, he should have that right. Some of those choices may be stupid or ignorant, but he should still have that right.
"That's just wrong. I'm not talking about glow in the dark neon signs."
It has nothing to do with right and wrong. If it's in the lease, it's in the lease. You don't have to sign it. You can find another apartment that lets you have signs in the windows and live there.
"Should you be able to ask such a question? If so, should you be able to discrimate? "Earlier you said "No".'
Personally, I don' know. I'm guessing laws vary from state to state on whether you can do that, though. In some places you can't do that.
It's pretty evident from your posts today that you truly couldn't care less about people's rights.
If it's in the lease, it's in the lease. You don't have to sign it. You can find another apartment that lets you have signs in the windows and live there.
Strange, just yesterday you wanted to give partial blame to corporate America for credit card debt. Today it's "you don't have to sign".
Personally, I don' know. I'm guessing laws vary from state to state on whether you can do that, though.
I'm asking your opinion, not what the law states.
If I missed it, please show me the spot.
Post # 1939, in regards to my post # 1938.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 20, 2005 at 10:08am.]
The rat has not read the tenants bill of rights, a land lord in this state has there hands tied by libs like you rat. You don't like it when your own rules come back at you and bite you do you=)
Are you on the side of landlords getting Big Government crammed down their throats too, jethro? Now a single person with a piece of paper from the state can strut the hallways of an apartment building swingin' his piece and pretending he's a Big Man.
Schools, school buses, polling places, courts, court offices, racetracks, secured airport areas, businesses where alcohol is sold, wherever high school, college or professional sporting events are taking place, hospitals, nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship and at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws.
If all these places can prohibit the carrying of guns on the premisis, why can't a landlord prohibit it on his property?
"The general landlord restriction is too broad for our taste. Indeed, we think that private landlords, short of violating civil rights statutes and the like, should be free to do whatever they want, including banning guns on their premises or something as simple as requiring all renters to wear blue shirts on Tuesdays. As frivolous as that sounds, the principle is not."
But how about it, jethro? -- what do you think of a landlord having no say whether or not his tenants can carry concealed weapons in his or her building.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 24, 2005 at 06:10pm.]
Do gun rights trump property rights?
Landlords beware, your next tenant may want to walk the hallways of your apartment building like Clint Eastwood, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Packin' in the parking lots.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 20, 2005 at 04:48am.]
Exactly what property right is being violated by having to allow people to carry their gun?
Maybe you don't want it in your apartment building. The building you own.
I think it's pretty much been proven you don't have a right to just do whatever you want on your property.
You gotta give me something better than "Want".
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 05:28am.]
"I think it's pretty much been proven you don't have a right to just do whatever you want on your property."
Not in this case, obviously.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 05:31am.]
That's the best you've got?
Your "want" (No reason for want given), trumps the right of the rest of society?
Yeah, that will hold up in court.
"Your "want" (No reason for want given), trumps the right of the rest of society?"
Why not? -- Why should a landlord have to give a reason?
Here could be his reason: I don't want it and it's my building.
Why not? -- Why should a landlord have to give a reason?
Because you're infringing upon someone's right. You don't just get to willy nilly infringe upon others rights.
Here could be his reason: I don't want it and it's my building.
Same could be said for not allowing Liberals to live in his building.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 05:44am.]
"You don't just get to willy nilly infringe upon others rights."
I don't find this "willy nilly" or arbitrary at all. It's not about someone's ethnicity or religion. This is about dangerous material possessed by tenants.
"Same could be said for not allowing Liberals to live in his building."
No.
I don't find this "willy nilly" or arbitrary at all.
Really? The best reason you could give me is "want". That's pretty damn willy nilly if you ask me.
It's not about someone's ethnicity or religion. This is about dangerous material possessed by tenants.
How do you differentiate from other dangerous material (other than "want")? Do you also ban cleaning chemicals? Prescription drugs? Swimming pools? Automobiles? Kitchen knives, baseball bats, and sharp pointy sticks?...
No.
Why not? He doesn't "want" Liberals on his property!
"Do you also ban cleaning chemicals? Prescription drugs? Swimming pools? Automobiles? Kitchen knives, baseball bats, and sharp pointy sticks?..."
Nope. And in this instance you obviously don't care about the ability of property owners to set rules for their own property. This should rammed down their throat.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 06:08am.]
Well, you obviously have nothing to debate with.
Nowhere have I said property owners don't have rights.
They simply don't have a right to infringe on others rights.
You can't even provide me with what right a property owner has other than "want". Which if we use that as our standard, he should also be allowed to ban Liberals from his property, because he "wants" to.
You attempted to use "they're dangerous", but they are no more so than many common household items.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 06:38am.]
Now he has his hands tied by conservatives like you, Digger.
Welcome to the club.
There's one M in coming, Digger.
"You attempted to use "they're dangerous", but they are no more so than many common household items."
Name another "common household item" that can pierce walls with high-velocity projectiles.
Supermarket list in the new Minnesota: Tide detergent, Mr. Clean, .44 caliber bullets.
What aisle are those in again?
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 07:19am.]
Name another "common household item" that can pierce walls with high-velocity projectiles.
I can't, but it's irrelevant. A gun can't clean a toilet or wash clothes either, but Tide and Mr Clean, when misused, are just as dangerous as a .44.
The truth is, you've yet to come up with what right of a landlord is being violated.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 07:56am.]
"The truth is, you've yet to come up with what right of a landlord is being violated."
So he'd just gotta live with it and deal with it? You conservatives are all for the individual, until it conflicts with your pet causes.
"Tide and Mr Clean, when misused, are just as dangerous as a .44."
That's one for the books.
Background checks before you can clean the bathroom?
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 08:06am.]
So he'd just gotta live with it and deal with it?
We've all got to deal with things all the time we don't like.
You conservatives are all for the individual, until it conflicts with your pet causes.
I am for the individual, it's you that's not. I'm for the rights of both the property owner and the gun carrier, as long as neither is infringing upon the rights of the other.
You've yet to tell me exactly what property right is being violated by having to allow people to carry their gun (other than "want").
That's one for the books.
Background checks before you can clean the bathroom?
You missed the point.
Your main argument thusfar has been that they're dangerous. Well, lots of things are dangerous when misused. Swimming pools are far more dangerous to a child than a .44 in the home.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 08:21am.]
"You've yet to tell me exactly what property right is being violated by having to allow people to carry their gun (other than "want")."
How about the right for two parties to negotiate a contract (lease)?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe you can have a contract that infringes upon someone's rights.
Govenment can't violate rights. But two private citizens aren't free to negotiate their own agreements? It's done all the time. An employee under contract with a company can't say whatever they want and do what they want and then claim First Amendmant rights while on the job.
You can't walk into your office on the job and place a loaded pistol on your desk. You can't cliam Second Amendmant rights to do that.
Get a grip, JT.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 09:03am.]
You're right, I wasn't thinking clearly.
It's still pretty weak if you ask me, and more importantly it's pretty sad you're willing to infringe upon someone's right because you "want" to (under the farce of the right to negotiate a contract).
I go back to why shouldn't I be able to not allow Liberals to rent from me?
As a property owner, should I be able to remove Wellstone signs from my tenants windows?
I say no. Because my right should not infringe upon their rights.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 09:06am.]
A property owner should be able to rent to anyone he chooses and to refuse to rent to anyone he chooses. If he doesn't want pets or children or gun owners or blacks or gays or unmarried couples or people on welfare, he should have that right. Some of those choices may be stupid or ignorant, but he should still have that right.
"under the farce of the right to negotiate a contract)."
Contract law is pretty important. If the right to negotiate a contract is a farce to you, well, I don't know how to answer that.
"As a property owner, should I be able to remove Wellstone signs from my tenants windows?"
If it's written into the lease that they cannot have signs in the windows.
"I go back to why shouldn't I be able to not allow Liberals to rent from me?"
That I can't answer. I don't know if you can ask that question or not.
Contract law is pretty important.
But yet it took you several hours to come up with it.
If the right to negotiate a contract is a farce to you, well, I don't know how to answer that.
It's the malice behind the contract that I have a problem with. In this case, you're simply using it as an excuse to infringe upon someone's right.
If it's written into the lease that they cannot have signs in the windows.
That's just wrong. I'm not talking about glow in the dark neon signs.
That I can't answer. I don't know if you can ask that question or not.
Should you be able to ask such a question? If so, should you be able to discrimate? Earlier you said "No".
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 09:22am.]
What's funny about all this is, it's not going to stop those non law abiding citizens.
Do you really believe a posted sign is going to prevent Johnny The Homicidal Maniac from bringing a gun into a building, Church, or parking lot?
All you'll accomplish is infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
"That's just wrong. I'm not talking about glow in the dark neon signs."
It has nothing to do with right and wrong. If it's in the lease, it's in the lease. You don't have to sign it. You can find another apartment that lets you have signs in the windows and live there.
"Should you be able to ask such a question? If so, should you be able to discrimate? "Earlier you said "No".'
Personally, I don' know. I'm guessing laws vary from state to state on whether you can do that, though. In some places you can't do that.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 10:05am.]
It has nothing to do with right and wrong.
Yeah, fuck right and wrong.
It's pretty evident from your posts today that you truly couldn't care less about people's rights.
If it's in the lease, it's in the lease. You don't have to sign it. You can find another apartment that lets you have signs in the windows and live there.
Strange, just yesterday you wanted to give partial blame to corporate America for credit card debt. Today it's "you don't have to sign".
Personally, I don' know. I'm guessing laws vary from state to state on whether you can do that, though.
I'm asking your opinion, not what the law states.
If I missed it, please show me the spot.
Post # 1939, in regards to my post # 1938.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 20, 2005 at 10:08am.]
"It's pretty evident from your posts today that you truly couldn't care less about people's rights."
Sorry you think that way.
Check my edit inre: 1931. I can see both sides of that, but I'm inclined to side with people's right to be free from that kind of scrutiny.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on May 20, 2005 at 10:19am.]
I was wrong, it was post 1939, not 1931.
Why not? -- Why should a landlord have to give a reason?
Here could be his reason: I don't want it and it's my building.
The rat has not read the tenants bill of rights, a land lord in this state has there hands tied by libs like you rat. You don't like it when your own rules come back at you and bite you do you=)
"The Mouse" is more appropriate for him.
If he really wanted to see some hand tying, he would have read up on the Unlawful Detainer process. But that won't happen.
"Yes! You hit the bullseye!"
Are you on the side of landlords getting Big Government crammed down their throats too, jethro? Now a single person with a piece of paper from the state can strut the hallways of an apartment building swingin' his piece and pretending he's a Big Man.
Schools, school buses, polling places, courts, court offices, racetracks, secured airport areas, businesses where alcohol is sold, wherever high school, college or professional sporting events are taking place, hospitals, nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship and at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws.
If all these places can prohibit the carrying of guns on the premisis, why can't a landlord prohibit it on his property?
[Edited by on May 23, 2005 at 01:54pm.]
One is the clause that says landlords cannot deny tenants the right to carry.
"The general landlord restriction is too broad for our taste. Indeed, we think that private landlords, short of violating civil rights statutes and the like, should be free to do whatever they want, including banning guns on their premises or something as simple as requiring all renters to wear blue shirts on Tuesdays. As frivolous as that sounds, the principle is not."
http://www.bratzapper.com/main.html
to rat: "Yes! You hit the bullseye!" was response to: "You don't like it when your own rules come back at you and bite you do you=)"
I seldom understand what Digger is talking about. What rules are you referring to? What rules did I make?
The only rules I was talking about was the rules that the CC law is gonna cram down the throats of landlords.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 23, 2005 at 03:35pm.]
play dumb all you want, rick. it doesn't matter. you know what was meant.
Sort of.
But how about it, jethro? -- what do you think of a landlord having no say whether or not his tenants can carry concealed weapons in his or her building.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 24, 2005 at 06:10pm.]
Don't have one anymore, but I've had pretty good landlords in the past.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. There's not a movement I know of to strike this part of the CC law. At least not yet.
There's not a movement I know of to strike this part of the CC law. At least not yet.
Then why have you been ranting about it?
Didn't know I was ranting, but this is still a chat board. And the Pioneer Press commented on it in its editorial that I linked.
You were ranting.
You had a pretty personal opinion.