|
Latest post 01-08-2009 10:25 AM by crazycajun. 97 replies.
-
01-01-2001 12:00 AM
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
  - Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Nice...Too bad it's not going to get out of committee
I think this is great, but with the anti-freedom party in charge, it's not likely to see the light of day.
|
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
crazycajun
 - Joined on 11-22-2008
|
gun dealers, who have been happily plying their trade since before we were a country SUDDENLY feel it necessary to photograph their customers?
could it be coersion from some government agency unable (or unwilling) to do it's job on it's own?
an armed citizenry is a SAFE citizenry.
when you take away honest citizen's rights to arm and defend themselves, they become victims to crime and terrorism.
when will you learn?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
a customer's picture protect the gun dealer?
the only thing taking that picture could possibly protect the gun dealer from is the government.
now, lets ban the government from ever being able to use those pictures in a prosecution and see just how long gun dealers want to take pictures of customers.
i'm sure that the dealers aren't spending meagher profits on pictures for their own protection, except from "BIG BROTHER".
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
How An Individual Conducts
His or her own private business is his or her business, and not the government's. If a gun dealer decides that taking and keeping pictures of customers is the way he/she wants to do business, regardless of why, it is a private matter between the dealer and the individual customer. If the customer does not like the practice, he/she is perfectly free to go elsewhere and buy a gun where that is not the practice.
Period. End.
The problem with all the home-schooled nanny-staters who are advocating government interference here by supporting this bill is that they evidently never received or slept through the lesson on basic American concepts of personal freedom. Either that, or they spent too much time slurping Kool-Aid at the "I'm entitled to government interference with others so I can get what I want" tank. Or studying too intently in advanced wacko paranoia book.
Jeesh. Morons. Spineless jerks who don't have the imagination or gumption or individualism to say, "I'm not doing business that way" and take their trade down the street to a vendor who better satisfies their preferences. Instead, they want their nanny government to make life comfy for them by restricting somebody else's freedom. And we allow fruitcakes like that to vote. No wonder the state and its people are heading down the sewer pipe.
This bill needs to fail because it is another example of legislative interference in a matter that is none of the legislature's business.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
the question.
WHY IS WALMART TAKING PICTURES OF IT'S CUSTOMERS?
it's NOT GOOD BUSINESS and it's NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS.
so, who are they protecting themselves from?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
nanny staters???
talk about a contradiction in terms.
most "nanny-staters" come from public (state) schools.
most "home schoolers" are home schooled because the parents don't like (or don't trust) the STATE SCHOOLS.
this isn't about governmental intervention to achieve a goal, like leftist like, this is CONTROLLING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. of banning a behavior that infringes on our rights.
in short, it's SHRINKING GOVERNMENT and RESTORING CONTROL OF BUSINESS TO THE BUSINESS OWNER.
i don't know of any liberals out there who actively support home schooling in favor of state schools, in fact, they want to register all home schooled children with the board of education.
so, let's get our rants straight, shall we?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
in fact, i'm for smaller government, not bigger.
my question is whether or not the government is who the stores are spending their meagher profits to protect themselves from.
otherwise, taking pictures of customers is an intrusion by the store to where it doesn't belong.
soon walmart will be the only operating retail busi8ness in the country, and as walmart does, so does everyone else.
the bad news is most walmarts no longer sell guns anyway, but that's a complaint for another day.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
response to nanny stater.
lets see now.
1. you seem to want a bill that would limit government intrusion to fail.
the reason: you don't believe in smaller government.
2. you seem to believe it is right and just for walmart to invade your privacy to "protect itself" from someone, but you won't say from who.
the reason: the only logical entity who would give walmart something they need to protect themselves from is government, unless you have another suggestion as to who would need pictures of recent gun purchasers AND be a threat to walmart.
3. you seem to have the mistaken impression that homeschoolers are liberals.
the reason: you were publicly educated in michigan.
4. your apparent zeal for "less intrusion" seems to be misplaced, as the passage of this bill would result in LESS INTRUSION, not more.
the reason: wally-world is taking the pictures in the first place is due to government intrusion.
now, if you just want to pick a fight, at least choose whether or not you will be intelligent about it.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Oh Great-now the employees
of Wallyworld will have a videotape of your purchase for their viewing pleasure. They will know your name, address, caliber of gun, probably even a close-up of your credit card or check so they can use or sell that info. What safeguards are there to assure that information is kept secure. Their are laws that prohibit printing out your whole credit card number on a transaction reciept, but not one the prohibits photographing the entire transaction?
Wal-mart said it would use the information to check on people who have purchased a gun from them. Didn't they do that when they sold it or are you under Wallys watchful eye after you buy a gun from them? Talk about surviellance and the Privacy act!
Screw them! I won't buy anything there anymore!
|
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
The Difference, M Strange, Is
That when Big Brother decides to compile a dossier on me I am powerless to do anything about it.
But when Wal-Mart or some other business decides to do that kind of thing, I have the option of taking my business elsewhere, to a vendor whose business practices better suits my personal taste.
It really is just that simple. Personal initiative of that sort also is highly effective at getting me what I want, impinges on nobody else's personal freedoms and choices, and costs taxpayers nothing.
It's the American way.
|
|
-
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
already pay for things like
1. gun boards to decide if you can buy a gun, whether you qualify or not.
2. permits to purchase. these permits waste time, money, and effort by duplicating the federal background check and allow arbitrary refusal to legal gun purchasers.
3. mandatory registration, which violates the second amendment because it's only purpose is to use the information gathered to disarm lawful gun owners.
i could go on with how this state interferes with and hampers freedoms and liberties if it's citizens and especially business owners, but i won't.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
are powerless to prevent government from keeping a dossier on you, yet you applaud when walmart keeps a dossier on you.
i think that walmart would gladly trade those pics, along with all pertinent info, for a small tax break.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
how will stopping walmart from taking my picture cost the state money?
how much is it costing me for the state MAKING walmart take my picture?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
are trying to do the job of the A.T.F.E.?
WHAT IS ILLEGAL ABOUT BUYING A GUN AT WALMART?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
represent the power of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not private citizens, they are civil servants.
you seem to be perfectly okey dokey with some mayor sticking his nose in walmart's business under the threat of not giving walmart a license to do business.
now, if you are through talking out of both sides of your mouth just to be contrary and start a fight...
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
About Wal-Mart And Its Gun Sales Policies, And The Mayors
Wal-Mart is a private business entity.
The Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition is a voluntary, non-governmental association of city mayors, who are elected officials.
The mayors’ group has no governmental authority or power. At best or worst – and in any case -- it may be viewed as a political advocacy organization, just like the National Rifle Association.
At present (11/15/08) only two Michigan mayors are listed as members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.
Wal Mart has voluntarily -- that is, of its own choice as a business entity – agreed to adopt the mayors’ group program in the way it handles gun sales.
Imagine and blurt out what else you may, but that will not change the fact that voluntary association or adoption of voluntary policies is -- by definition -- not coerced.
Voluntary association like this-- between Wal-Mart and the mayors or the NRA and its members -- is a right protected by Amendment I, of the United States Constitution.
No government entity has the right to bar you or me or anyone from joining the National Rifle Association and adopting its programs and political positions and legal practices as our own. Likewise, no government entity is empowered to bar Wal-Mart or any other business from partnering with the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition and adopting its recommended policies and practices.
It is OK to criticize and harangue against Wal-Mart for its chosen business practices and choice of voluntary associations. It is OK to be critical of the mayors’ coalition. It is OK to be critical of the NRA. The right to criticize is a right also protected by the First Amendment.
With rights go responsibilities.
The right to criticize entails a responsibility be fact-based and honest in criticizing. Criticism built on lies and distortions is morally bankrupt.
It is OK to take your business elsewhere if you don’t like Wal Mart’s (or the NRA’s) business policies and practices. The right of association protected by the First Amendment also implicitly embraces the right to not associate oneself with beliefs or participate in practices of which one does not personally approve.
That is American individualism in action – the right to exercise personal choice.
But it is not OK to pass legislation banning Wal Mart’s (or any other private business’ or association’s) voluntarily adopted and legal transaction practices or other policies that it deems appropriate just because some -- or even many -- people happen to dislike or disagree with those practices or policies.
That is unwarranted governmental interference in private affairs.
Such legislation certainly violates the spirit of Amendment I to the US Constitution. It also may violate the Constitution in fact.
Advocating such legislation is advocating un-American practices.
|
|
|
|
|