We need to get our terminology straight- its HUMAN rights, not GUN rights

[Shadow Bear]

I posted this in response to the Con Carry thread, but I believe the concept is much more important then that-

We've been duped into using the terminology by the forces of darkness- its not GUN rights, its HUMAN rights we're fighting for. Guns have no rights, humans have the right of self preservation. It's about our inalienable rights- life, liberty and happiness. Life demands the means to sustain it. Just was we demand safe drinking water, we demand the ability to defend ourselves against those who would deny us our inalienable right to LIFE.

So, its the restoration of our HUMAN rights we seek.

[CV67PAT]

I consider it a "Civil Right" also.

And the general populous sees the Second Amendment as a vague concept. That is why I prefer to state that our right to bear arms is por the protection of ourselves as well as the state as provided in the Michigan Constitution.

That eliminates any discussion of whether it is a individual right or a state right under 2A.

§ 6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 5.

[TheQ]

I consider it a civil right to put anything in my body that I don't want...or not allow any person into a business I own for any reason I want, be it they: are carrying a gun, are black, a woman, bald or any other reason.

Many of you would disagree with this.

[Shadow Bear]

I consider it a civil right to put anything in my body that I don't want...or not allow any person into a business I own for any reason I want, be it they: are carrying a gun, are black, a woman, bald or any other reason.

Many of you would disagree with this.

No, I completely agree with the bald ones- keep them OUT!

[CV67PAT]

I consider it a civil right to put anything in my body that I don't want...or not allow any person into a business I own for any reason I want, be it they: are carrying a gun, are black, a woman, bald or any other reason.

Many of you would disagree with this.

Only PEOPLE have Civil Rights. Government formed persons are not people.

It is "We the People..."

It is NOT "We the Persons..."

A business is NOT "The People". Therefore a business does NOT have any civil right protections of the Bill of Rights.

It is however governed under the Interstate Commerce Act.

[CV67PAT]

No, I completely agree with the bald ones- keep them OUT!

Would this be those that are actually bald or also those that pretend to be bald?

[TheQ]

I consider it a civil right to put anything in my body that I don't want...or not allow any person into a business I own for any reason I want, be it they: are carrying a gun, are black, a woman, bald or any other reason.

Many of you would disagree with this.

Only PEOPLE have Civil Rights. Government formed persons are not people.

It is "We the People..."

It is NOT "We the Persons..."

A business is NOT "The People". Therefore a business does NOT have any civil right protections of the Bill of Rights.

It is however governed under the Interstate Commerce Act.

What about individual/family owned businesses?

[CV67PAT]

I consider it a civil right to put anything in my body that I don't want...or not allow any person into a business I own for any reason I want, be it they: are carrying a gun, are black, a woman, bald or any other reason.

Many of you would disagree with this.

Only PEOPLE have Civil Rights. Government formed persons are not people.

It is "We the People..."

It is NOT "We the Persons..."

A business is NOT "The People". Therefore a business does NOT have any civil right protections of the Bill of Rights.

It is however governed under the Interstate Commerce Act.

What about individual/family owned businesses?

A business is a business. It is not a natural born person. A business is NOT the PEOPLE. It is an entity created in law. People are born. Persons are created.

But if you mean a person (natural born) doing trade on his privately owned real property, then he does enjoy the civil liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.

[TheQ]

Ahhhh. How about 2 natural persons doing business...scratch that, "trade" for joint profit?

[CV67PAT]

Ahhhh. How about 2 natural persons doing business...scratch that, "trade" for joint profit?

Your question requires additional information for an answer.

And the scope of this discussion has evolved beyond the intent of the OP. Start another thread for us to continue this thought provoking discussion.

But suffice it for me to say that it is my belief that persons do not enjoy the Civil Liberties specified in the Bill of Rights that the People do.