

It says the current gun debate has nothing to do with it









Sources: Forbes, CNN Money

Comments     Threshold


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
His point is entirely valid. A gun is designed to inflict harm upon whatever it happens to be pointed at. Some people will point the gun at legitimate things, and some people won't, but the gun itself doesn't care.

You're trying to connect these two things to justify your assumption that a gun = illegal

However, guns are constitutionally protected and people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A person with a gun should NOT be assumed to be a criminal. They're assumed to be a law abiding citizen with a constitutionally protected gun.

RE: I'm Confused
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 7:58:51 PM , Rating: 2

No, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of jimbo's statement that guns only harm "those who wish to inflict injury on me or my loved ones".

Guns are legal; I've *never* said otherwise. But just because something is legal does not mean a business must support it or that they cannot have their own policy prohibiting it. Apple can ban porn (which is also completely legal), nightclubs can ban sandals, and Square can ban firearms sales.

The legality of guns is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
I do see what you're saying, but I guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court. Aside from the gun issue, it seems that companies are trying to override people's rights when it comes to their privacy or freedom.

While it's illegal for the government to do this, can private companies? For instance, you have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure the US. But everything is owned. Can every private landowner have their own security forces that shake you down against your will when you walk past their property? That would effectively result in you only having freedom in your own house or on federal land.

RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
I have another good example for you:

Imagine if health insurance companies said that they don't want people they insure to smoke, or eat meat, or shoot guns. You might think that they have the right to say that, and if you don't like their terms of service you can just avoid them. But with Obamacare you *have* to have health insurance from a private company as there's no public option.

If all the health insurance companies had this requirement you'd get a situation where you have a legal right to do x but you also have a legal obligation to get insurance which means you can't do x.


Related Articles
