7 cops respond to man legally carrying, berate citizen with lecture.

[spat]

In some ways I agree that corporate laws should change. Corporations enjoy the protection of our government systems. I have always believed that corporate taxes should be very high for this reason.

For example, corporations benefit far more from our public roads (transporting their goods) than the average citizen. The tax code should reflect that.

But when it comes to property rights, I have to side with corporations here. Any building Walmart owns is under their control and therefore they get to decide what is allowed and what isn’t, no different than your home.

Business *never* pays taxes. They collect taxes from the consumer for the government.

Saying you want corporations to pay more taxes is exactly saying that you want to pay more taxes, you just want them hidden in the price of goods and services.

As for corporate rights, corporations have none. They are merely a group of real people (shareholders) acting collectively. However those people do have rights. So whatever rights a pair of partners in a business has, a corporation should be able to exercise on behalf of its shareholders too.

So, google, walmart, etc effectively have the same rights (and responsibilities) as corporations as they would if they were owned by one very rich guy.

That said, some of these companies are so omnipresent in their sphere that anti-trust issues creep in.

There is also the aspect of their responsibility for what is conveyed over their system. If they want to exercise editorial control over the content then they can't claim a common carrier exemption.

Think of it this way, FedEx isn't responsible if they deliver a box full of cocaine because they are a common carrier. But if they decided they were going to open and inventory every package they handled, then they would be.

As soon as google or Facebook or whatever start having "community standards" and picking and choosing what content they like and what they don't, then they should be responsible for all the content on their service.

They don't get to say "we don't like that post so we're deleting it, and we're not responsible for that other post because we don't control it" Either you are in control of the content or you are not. You don't get to pick and choose based on which way works best for you legally in some situation.

 

[Darth]

Well Dath like I said before, it boils down to me not like being told what to do. Ultimately I want to be able to do whatever I damn well please, whenever I damn well please and fuck you if you say otherwise. Especially if what I want to do is legal under the law. Fuck your corporate policy, Walmart can shove it up their Chinese shit peddling ass. Sideways. With no lube.

You're welcome to do what you wish. Just not in my store.

No more than I am welcome to come take a shit on your coffee table.

 

[Airborneguy]

Well Dath like I said before, it boils down to me not like being told what to do. Ultimately I want to be able to do whatever I damn well please, whenever I damn well please and fuck you if you say otherwise. Especially if what I want to do is legal under the law. Fuck your corporate policy, Walmart can shove it up their Chinese shit peddling ass. Sideways. With no lube.

Do you respect the requests of people you hang out with in their homes?

 

[Airborneguy]

Too much stability leads to stagnation and rot.
The western world is rotting apart. Time to reforge in chaos.

Good luck being the red flag test case btw.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Well said, @spat.

 

[SomeSoldier]

For?

They either change their policy or provide better security.

 

[SomeSoldier]

In some ways I agree that corporate laws should change. Corporations enjoy the protection of our government systems. I have always believed that corporate taxes should be very high for this reason.

For example, corporations benefit far more from our public roads (transporting their goods) than the average citizen. The tax code should reflect that.

But when it comes to property rights, I have to side with corporations here. Any building Walmart owns is under their control and therefore they get to decide what is allowed and what isn’t, no different than your home.

The problem with corporate taxes, is they past that cost on to us, it doesnt really hurt or bother them that much.

 

[Airborneguy]

They either change their policy or provide better security.

A lawsuit like that would be thrown out in a hot minute on the same exact grounds as what many are saying here: if you don't feel secure in that store, shop somewhere else. You have no standing as a party to a lawsuit before something happens to you.

 

[GOPerfect]

So, should the Government force businesses to follow the Rights of the people?

 

[Podmonkey]

So, should the Government force businesses to follow the Rights of the people?

It seems like the whole configuration of society is wrong, like the peices can't fit together the way we need. I have long wondered if removing the proxies protections between executive CEOs and the corporations they run could help to give some leverage to the individual. The problem with Walmart is in many towns across the country they are the only game in town and with no competition the private citizen hasn't anything to work with as far as taking business elsewhere. Amazon I suppose and believe me Walmart is feeling the hurt on that front big time. They have become absolutely ruthless in scraping out every last bit of efficiency they can in their outfit. Ask any trucker about their brutally unforgiving delivery time tables.
The solution can never be to give government more power, I understand that, but Corporations have far to much power in society themselves. Corporate influence is actually far worse since the have been able to end run the constitution.
Something must be done though, there has to be a check here, and a balance on that check.
I honestly think, at some point after we are all dead that the current way of life will collapse under it's own weight. You cant sustain constant growth forever, you are going to run out of stuff to produce with, stuff to sell, people to sell to.
All I know is I do not like what I see with all this corporate social policy making. I scared me in fact. Today Walmart, bans you for open carrying, tomorrow the ban you because you voted for the wrong person, having the wrong views, the freeze your assets, bar you from employment, from travel, the powers that be I mean. It's like an E-Gulag. They are encouraging citizens to inform on one another like how the Soviets encouraged children to inform on their parents if they said the wrong thing. So many of the watershed articles of dystopian science fiction has actually come more and it happened right under our noses. They are well on their way to make R.U.R a reality too.

 

[GOPerfect]

It seems like the whole configuration of society is wrong, like the peices can't fit together the way we need. I have long wondered if removing the proxies protections between executive CEOs and the corporations they run could help to give some leverage to the individual. The problem with Walmart is in many towns across the country they are the only game in town and with no competition the private citizen hasn't anything to work with as far as taking business elsewhere. Amazon I suppose and believe me Walmart is feeling the hurt on that front big time. They have become absolutely ruthless in scraping out every last bit of efficiency they can in their outfit. Ask any trucker about their brutally unforgiving delivery time tables.
The solution can never be to give government more power, I understand that, but Corporations have far to much power in society themselves. Corporate influence is actually far worse since the have been able to end run the constitution.
Something must be done though, there has to be a check here, and a balance on that check.
I honestly think, at some point after we are all dead that the current way of life will collapse under it's own weight. You cant sustain constant growth forever, you are going to run out of stuff to produce with, stuff to sell, people to sell to.
All I know is I do not like what I see with all this corporate social policy making. I scared me in fact. Today Walmart, bans you for open carrying, tomorrow the ban you because you voted for the wrong person, having the wrong views, the freeze your assets, bar you from employment, from travel, the powers that be I mean. It's like an E-Gulag. They are encouraging citizens to inform on one another like how the Soviets encouraged children to inform on their parents if they said the wrong thing. So many of the watershed articles of dystopian science fiction has actually come more and it happened right under our noses. They are well on their way to make R.U.R a reality too.

Well said, as usual.

CEO's have so much power because of the people.

Americans as a whole suck. We continue doing business with companies that go against our core beliefs.

Take this Walmart crap....

I read all of the time on this forum as well as others that I am on, people bitching and bitching and bitching. As soon as they finish bitching about company's like Walmart, they get in their cars and go shopping at the same stores they are bitching about.

Walmart, I have not been in one for more than ten years. Dicks, I stopped long ago. Target, yeah, no! They support too many groups that I am against. Why would I give them my money?

So much begins with the people, but too many of the people are to freaken stupid to understand this.

 

[Podmonkey]

Well said, as usual.

CEO's have so much power because of the people.

Americans as a whole suck. We continue doing business with companies that go against our core beliefs.

Take this Walmart crap....

I read all of the time on this forum as well as others that I am on, people bitching and bitching and bitching. As soon as they finish bitching about company's like Walmart, they get in their cars and go shopping at the same stores they are bitching about.

Walmart, I have not been in one for more than ten years. Dicks, I stopped long ago. Target, yeah, no! They support too many groups that I am against. Why would I give them my money?

So much begins with the people, but too many of the people are to freaken stupid to understand this.

That's the problem though isn't it? What national general goods chain is pro 2A?
This is why I say we need to put some serious checks on corporate social influence. Corporations are amoral, in the sense of the absence of morality as opposed to immoral which is a state of active malevolence. A corporation will follow the money and nothing more, nothing less. How can you have a free society with profit as the sole guiding principle?

 

[SomeSoldier]

A lawsuit like that would be thrown out in a hot minute on the same exact grounds as what many are saying here: if you don't feel secure in that store, shop somewhere else. You have no standing as a party to a lawsuit before something happens to you.

Something did happen and they are being sued. That was my point. I am waiting to see what comes of it.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Something did happen and they are being sued. That was my point. I am waiting to see what comes of it.

Nothing. It will get tossed.

 

[Airborneguy]

People who were actually effected by a crime might have a case, I’m not denying that.

You seemed to be implying a lawsuit claiming they don’t provide adequate security for current/future customers. If I was wrong, I stand corrected.

 

[SomeSoldier]

People who were actually effected by a crime might have a case, I’m not denying that.

You seemed to be implying a lawsuit claiming they don’t provide adequate security for current/future customers. If I was wrong, I stand corrected.

No you were right I am claiming that but I am stating from the lawsuit of people that were affected not people that could be.

I think if a place/owner is going to strip you of your right to defend yourself then that place/owner should then supply adequate protection.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I think if a place/owner is going to strip you of your right to defend yourself then that place/owner should then supply adequate protection.

Except they aren’t. They allow concealed carry. For someone who cannot, the choice is really simple. Go to Stop and Shop instead or Home Depot or Kohl’s.

Nobody is forcing anybody to go to Walmart. I live real close to NJ. I can save 30 cents a gallon by getting gas there. I don’t go there however because I cannot legally carry there.

 

[nortatoga]

First of all this can not be the whole story!! It does not help our cause if we only use the part of the story that looks good for our side, like the liberals do!!

(1) Kentucky is a Open Carry state!

(2) Kentucky has no force of law for No Gun Signs!

(3) So this can not be the first time someone Open Carried in this Walmart!

I would think that this guy was asked to leave and refused (JMHO) now he is trespassing

 

[BDinPutnam]

I thought it was pretty transparent but apparently not so I'll repeat it here.

A "no guns" policy is a prohibition. It is not a promise, representation, or warranty. There is no way in hell you could get any sensible judge in any part of America to think otherwise because its patently absurd to think a no guns policy is a blanket promise to customers to ensure their safety from neer do wells.

They could also have a "no airplanes" policy and if a freak plane crashed into the store and killed a bunch of people, would the store be on the hook because they don't have mall ninjas on the roof with stingers and forcefields?

 

[spat]

I thought it was pretty transparent but apparently not so I'll repeat it here.

A "no guns" policy is a prohibition. It is not a promise, representation, or warranty. There is no way in hell you could get any sensible judge in any part of America to think otherwise because its patently absurd to think a no guns policy is a blanket promise to customers to ensure their safety from neer do wells.

They could also have a "no airplanes" policy and if a freak plane crashed into the store and killed a bunch of people, would the store be on the hook because they don't have mall ninjas on the roof with stingers and forcefields?

What if you can prove that "no guns" signs attract mass shooters like shit attracts flys ?

Say a statistic like "despite the fact that less than 0.01% of the country being a "gun free zone" 95% of mass shootings take place in them ?

Seems like they are creating the exact sort of hazard that liability lawsuits are made for.

 

[BDinPutnam]

You're still confusing the entire premise. Theres way more shit and way more flies than there are no gun signs and mass shooters. I digress.

I think in your hypothetical - what's the cause of action? Where in the law does the liability reside?

You keep confusing a prohibition like "no external food or drink allowed" at an eatery, with warrants and representations like "no peanuts are processed in the facility that manufactured this product."

I've also seen the fire code slash food safety-type argument here and there in the forum but I find them unpersuasive. Those laws are of a very different color of what we're talking about here.

I'm open to convincing but at this point too the way juries are instructed I'd actually think there would be few and far between juries that would buy your theory in a civil case.