Author Topic: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores  (Read 5335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gene R

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Gender: Male
Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« on: November 08, 2010, 02:19:13 PM »
I dont know about other stores, but the sherwin williams paint store in Charleston South Carolina doesn't allow consealed carry....I didn't know until after I purchased, but if I had I would have went somewhere else. So if you go to a store to buy please check first.

Sometime I might have to buy anyway

depending on how bad I need it or if it isn't available anywhere else, but I sure don't like it..


Offline Bingo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2010, 02:37:14 AM »
     This was an isolated incedent.  I have a friend who owns a Sherwin Williams store. If he saw you had a gun with you he would probably ask to see it then talk your ear off about the guns he owns and the hunting he does. He's a great  guy and a terrific outdoorsman.
    Please, don't let the lead in maline all the Store owners.

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2010, 03:15:27 AM »
In Texas if you don't want guns in your business, YOU HAVE TO POST, a specific, state approved sign out in full view. In my area, I have seen no such sign on ANY Sherwin Williams stores.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2010, 06:58:45 AM »
In Texas if you don't want guns in your business, YOU HAVE TO POST, a specific, state approved sign out in full view. In my area, I have seen no such sign on ANY Sherwin Williams stores.

Same here.  A picture of a gun with a line through it don't get the job done.  Only a sign worded specifically, posted in the right place, and of a certain size is to be recognized.  With anything else all they can do is ask you to leave.  If you refuse to leave, you can then be charged with trespassing only.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2010, 04:47:42 AM »
+1 with Dee. I was visiting one of the largest companies in the world that just simply stated "No Concealed Weapons Allowed" I laughed because one of their 4 billion attorneys should have noticed it. 

Offline Pass Lake

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2011, 06:36:19 PM »
I own 19 long rifles/shotguns and 2 handguns.  I have never remotely felt the need to be armed when I have gone to buy paint.  Or any other store for that matter.

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2011, 05:50:36 AM »
I own 19 long rifles/shotguns and 2 handguns.  I have never remotely felt the need to be armed when I have gone to buy paint.  Or any other store for that matter.
[/quote
    That is fine for you, but you can't speak for everyone and all areas where their is a sherwin-williams. Maybe your store is in a safe area, but that doesn't assure us that all are.
It is the right of most to carry, now because you feel safe you want to take the right away from your fellow citizens, this is how we loose rights.

Most police officers never use their guns in the line of duty, does this mean we should disarm them? I for one do not think so, but following your train of thought is if they are unlikely to use it, why have it. It is a tool that they carry for their own protection as well as for the public. We live in the areas they patrol and need they to use this tool, because there is a chance they may need them, but we do not?

 As a side note my 1.5 yr old daughter were almost attact by a pitbull while out for a walk, the stroller was my weapon at hand and kept the dog at bay long enough for the owner to come and get it, (dog tried to get around it to bite me in the rearend) point is we need protection from more then just 2 legged animals. No doubt the dog would have severly mauled or killed my daughter. I wish I had my gun, this was 2 houses away from me.


Offline buffermop

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2011, 08:33:40 AM »
Maybe the guy was in fear you would shoot up his paint cans. Try carring into your local bank.

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2011, 06:56:50 PM »
Maybe the guy was in fear you would shoot up his paint cans. Try carring into your local bank.

 I do all the time,Ive even open carried to the bank. Gotta love it here. Signs mean nothing here.

Offline jhm

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2011, 02:26:23 AM »
     Banks in our area DONT have any stinkin signs saying NO CCW alowed and if they did I would move my money elsewhere, and that goes for any retailer I dont have to spend in their business, and as far as carrying a firearm shopping I do even if for a cup of coffee, their isnt any specific time to carry if you are legal CARRY IT if you want.   Jim

Offline Squib

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • G- S- T- and I ain't got time to bleed!
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2011, 07:51:10 AM »
I don't know about everywhere, but some states have the law worded so that if you are in violation of a prohibition to carry and ARE licensed to do so, you can only get nailed for trespassing or displaying a weapon, not for having it or having it in a restricted area.  it's not a crime, just a lost point on your concealed carry license.  you still can get in trouble for "brandishing" the gun, or refusing to leave after you get caught with it--- but how does that happen if you kept it concealed.  it's a joke; "don't get caught" and "no blood, no foul" are what the law really amounts too, not carry here but not there.

I stress this is some states and not others, so read up on your local laws first.

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2011, 09:13:44 AM »
In Texas if you don't want guns in your business, YOU HAVE TO POST, a specific, state approved sign out in full view. In my area, I have seen no such sign on ANY Sherwin Williams stores.

 In Utah,if you dont want guns in your business,you have to install a metal detector and hire a security guard to conduct pat downs. Other than that,there's nothing you can do as signs have no force of law here.

Offline Pass Lake

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2011, 10:13:55 AM »
I expect LEO to be fully armed at all times.  If I lived in a high crime area, I would be armed, but really I would find a better place to live. My point is that even though I have a right to do something it doesn't mean that I need to exercise or flaunt that right. I have a right to free speech/assembly but I have never stood on a street corner holding a sign in protest.   I am not going to be carrying a weapon into school unless I am teaching hunters safety.  I am not going to church armed.  I am not carrying a gun into a bar or into a store.  Why should I?  I live in a little peace of heaven in rural America.  In my 60 years of life in America I have never been in a bad situation.  Quite frankly, if people saw me armed in a store they would think I had gone of my rocker.  If you feel threatened where you live, go ahead and carry everywhere.  It is your right. 

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2011, 10:21:35 AM »
WA state business' have to be posted as well. BUT if a property owner asks you to leave regardless of the reason you are obliged to leave. I figure if a business posts a no guns allowed sign they are within their rights as a property owner and I have the choice to either shop there or not. No big deal to me anymore I guess. I suppose rights can trump other rights at times.

Offline Old Syko

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2011, 02:49:43 AM »
I expect LEO to be fully armed at all times.  If I lived in a high crime area, I would be armed, but really I would find a better place to live. My point is that even though I have a right to do something it doesn't mean that I need to exercise or flaunt that right. I have a right to free speech/assembly but I have never stood on a street corner holding a sign in protest.   I am not going to be carrying a weapon into school unless I am teaching hunters safety.  I am not going to church armed.  I am not carrying a gun into a bar or into a store.  Why should I?  I live in a little peace of heaven in rural America.  In my 60 years of life in America I have never been in a bad situation.  Quite frankly, if people saw me armed in a store they would think I had gone of my rocker.  If you feel threatened where you live, go ahead and carry everywhere.  It is your right. 
Quote
I own 19 long rifles/shotguns and 2 handguns.  I have never remotely felt the need to be armed when I have gone to buy paint.  Or any other store for that matter.

Spoken like a true victim to be.  Naive as a newborn.   ::)     

Offline pmeisel

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2011, 03:42:27 AM »
Haven't seen any "no guns" signs on the two S-W stores I have been in the last couple months.  Or on any other business, for that matter, locally. 

I have seen a lot of "no hoods allowed to be worn in store" signs, there was a rash of armed robberies by a hooded ... let's just say individual.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2011, 05:07:55 AM »
I own 19 long rifles/shotguns and 2 handguns.  I have never remotely felt the need to be armed when I have gone to buy paint.  Or any other store for that matter.

I don't know if you posted this as a joke, or just trying to push someone's buttons.. People carry guns all the time, it is not a matter of where you go, but the right to carry them. It is our 2nd Amendment right after all! I carry my guns everywhere I go, stores, or just out riding around..  You never know when you need one, you know the old saying, better to have and not need, than to not have and need one.
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline BlkHawk73

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2011, 06:17:02 AM »
  If it's such an important issue, you'd check the policies BEFORE becoming a customer not after.   

   I find it funny how many make it such a huge issue yet they themselves cannot carry where they work.  Happy to take the $ from a place that doesn't allow the guns but WHOA if another place has policies against it.   
"Never Surrender, Just Carry On."  - G.S.

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2011, 08:49:21 AM »
I own 19 long rifles/shotguns and 2 handguns.  I have never remotely felt the need to be armed when I have gone to buy paint.  Or any other store for that matter.

I don't know if you posted this as a joke, or just trying to push someone's buttons.. People carry guns all the time, it is not a matter of where you go, but the right to carry them. It is our 2nd Amendment right after all! I carry my guns everywhere I go, stores, or just out riding around..  You never know when you need one, you know the old saying, better to have and not need, than to not have and need one.

 I'm just going to clarify that. Its NOT your second Amendment right. Its your 2nd Amendment right to OWN handguns. The Court was very clear on that. You may THINK its your right to carry them,but its not,at least not yet. It would be nice if they did hand down a favorable ruling and if we can keep the momentum going it might just happen. Its going to take a lot of work though. Right now as far as pretty much ANYONE that really matters is concerned,its NOT your 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun although in Arizona,Alaska and Vermont and perhaps even other states,depending on how they worded it ,it may well be under state law. Other than that,I agree,people carry guns all the time,and you never know when you need one which is why I carry where practical. I would not try to do it without my permit,instead carrying a copy of the constitution,as I know what the result would be when the officer asks why I'm carrying a shotgun at the mall. With the permit,yea,as far as I can tell from reading the statutes the license simply exempts you from almost all of the laws about carrying "dangerous weapons". (My guess is what would happen is that someone would call the police,they would come and,after taking control of the shotgun while we were talking,would ask me what the heck I was doing with it there. After determining that I'm not going to shoot someone,they would probably ask the manager of the mall if he wanted me to leave,he would say he would and I would have to go.

 The answer then comes down to,yes,I can carry a gun anywhere that's not on the list of prohibited places here,and carry any kind I want. However,the property owner or their representative can ask me to leave if its disruptive. Guns in holsters Ive never had a problem with,long guns might be a different story. My guess is,I could get away with a lever action in Carls Jr while ordering,depending on the area. In rural areas they would assume I was hunting and didn't want to leave it in the car. (Theres a Carls Jr on my way out to my favorite trout fishing spot where I often go in with a openly carried revolver and I only have been asked what was up with the gun once. She asked me if I was going hunting,but didnt seem alarmed or anything. In a shopping mall down town,they would probably assume I was very angry at someone and call the police.

 I fully agree,you should look for the signs. In fact if its legally binding in your state,you SHOULD look for the signs,then make a decision if you want to shop there. Ive been in Sherman Williams other places and have yet to see a sign so I doubt its a corporate policy. I very much doubt that you will find ANY national chain that has a policy that guns ARE allowed in their stores where permitted by local law. Well,maybe some sporting goods stores. All the sporting goods stores around here actually DO have a sign that says something like"All guns brought in for sale or service must be unloaded and checked by an employee before being brought into the store. Permit holders with concealed weapons are exempted."

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2011, 05:11:12 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit..  Although I have a CCW for several States.  This is where I think the Government is over stepping there authority. The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand what the laws say, but they are laws created by people not following the Constitution.
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2011, 07:49:56 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit..  Although I have a CCW for several States.  This is where I think the Government is over stepping there authority. The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand what the laws say, but they are laws created by people not following the Constitution.

 I actually disagree with your reading of it. By that logic,it applies ONLY to militia as that's what its talking about. The supreme court feels otherwise and has ruled that its a personal right to self defense. However,if we are just looking at an exact reading of it,its about militias.

  Consider this statement as an analogy. "The right to be secure in ones person being necessary to a free and just society,the right to use deadly force shall not be infringed." Sweet,that means that if this were in the constitution I could go randomly shooting and killing people right? Of course not. You cant just choose the part of the statement you like. One person might read that as being a right to be secure in ones person and say it only means that that security must be provided. They might say that the right to use deadly force is obsolete and that the police will do that for me. By the same logic you use,someone trying to beat a murder charge could say it provides them a right to kill indiscriminately (clearly that is absurd). I'm not comparing the right to carry guns to the right to kill people of course,only that the logical structure of the two statements is identical,and my statement is made to demonstrate how the logic is flawed by highlighting the absurdity.

 The full statement however is reasonable. It posits that its acceptable to kill to protect yourself. The two parts MUST be taken together. If you insist upon a LITERAL exact reading of the constitution,then you are incorrect and the 2nd Amendment ONLY gives you the right to carry guns insofar as it furthers the goal of having a militia. It could be argued that you have a personal right to small arms so that you can form a millitia,or that you have a personal right to them so that you will be skilled in their use should the time come that the millitia needs to be called up. Your right to carry those arms would similarly be restricted to the millitia. It would be perfectly acceptable to say that they had to be locked up and disassembled so that they could not readily be used for self defense. Its not plausible that seconds or minutes could count when the militia was called up. 15 minutes to unlock and assemble your weapon would be fine to stop an invading army. A right to carry a handgun for self defense has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a militia.

 Consider,if the 2nd amendment is about a personal right to self defense,then why does it even mention the militia. If we read only the second part,then what does the first part mean?

 The reality is,Heller was as much of a "activist" court decision as Roe vs Wade was. If you feel that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution exactly as written with no room for interpretation of intent,then the decision in Dc vs Heller was wrong. In short,the personal right to self defense is really considered to be implicit in the 2nd amendment the same way a right to privacy is considered implicit in the constitution. All the 2nd Amendment guarantees in its literal wording is that the Federal Government cannot deny you the weapons that you need to form a militia. Ironically,the Supreme Court very clearly ruled that it CAN in fact deny you those weapons. The rest,self defense,concealed carry,hunting any any other use of guns,if they are to be protected by the constitution must be "read into it" in the same manner that the very people that want these rights affirmed complain about when its done with issues they oppose.

 I personally am all for personal rights to own and carry guns,just as it seems you are,but my views on firearms rights are not in conflict with my views on the constitution.

 In this case we agree on WHAT and even agree the constitution should protect it,but disagree on WHY and HOW the constitution protects it.

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2011, 10:02:59 AM »
+1 Redhawk1. The gooberment both federal and local have overstepped their Constitutional authority on dealing with the 2ndA. Further more, they have overstepped their authority to even think that they have the ability to control the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of a man to defend his family and himself. The gooberment and courts have usurped their power.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2011, 05:07:51 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit..  Although I have a CCW for several States.  This is where I think the Government is over stepping there authority. The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand what the laws say, but they are laws created by people not following the Constitution.

 I actually disagree with your reading of it. By that logic,it applies ONLY to militia as that's what its talking about. The supreme court feels otherwise and has ruled that its a personal right to self defense. However,if we are just looking at an exact reading of it,its about militias.

  Consider this statement as an analogy. "The right to be secure in ones person being necessary to a free and just society,the right to use deadly force shall not be infringed." Sweet,that means that if this were in the constitution I could go randomly shooting and killing people right? Of course not. You cant just choose the part of the statement you like. One person might read that as being a right to be secure in ones person and say it only means that that security must be provided. They might say that the right to use deadly force is obsolete and that the police will do that for me. By the same logic you use,someone trying to beat a murder charge could say it provides them a right to kill indiscriminately (clearly that is absurd). I'm not comparing the right to carry guns to the right to kill people of course,only that the logical structure of the two statements is identical,and my statement is made to demonstrate how the logic is flawed by highlighting the absurdity.

 The full statement however is reasonable. It posits that its acceptable to kill to protect yourself. The two parts MUST be taken together. If you insist upon a LITERAL exact reading of the constitution,then you are incorrect and the 2nd Amendment ONLY gives you the right to carry guns insofar as it furthers the goal of having a militia. It could be argued that you have a personal right to small arms so that you can form a millitia,or that you have a personal right to them so that you will be skilled in their use should the time come that the millitia needs to be called up. Your right to carry those arms would similarly be restricted to the millitia. It would be perfectly acceptable to say that they had to be locked up and disassembled so that they could not readily be used for self defense. Its not plausible that seconds or minutes could count when the militia was called up. 15 minutes to unlock and assemble your weapon would be fine to stop an invading army. A right to carry a handgun for self defense has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a militia.

 Consider,if the 2nd amendment is about a personal right to self defense,then why does it even mention the militia. If we read only the second part,then what does the first part mean?

 The reality is,Heller was as much of a "activist" court decision as Roe vs Wade was. If you feel that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution exactly as written with no room for interpretation of intent,then the decision in Dc vs Heller was wrong. In short,the personal right to self defense is really considered to be implicit in the 2nd amendment the same way a right to privacy is considered implicit in the constitution. All the 2nd Amendment guarantees in its literal wording is that the Federal Government cannot deny you the weapons that you need to form a militia. Ironically,the Supreme Court very clearly ruled that it CAN in fact deny you those weapons. The rest,self defense,concealed carry,hunting any any other use of guns,if they are to be protected by the constitution must be "read into it" in the same manner that the very people that want these rights affirmed complain about when its done with issues they oppose.

 I personally am all for personal rights to own and carry guns,just as it seems you are,but my views on firearms rights are not in conflict with my views on the constitution.

 In this case we agree on WHAT and even agree the constitution should protect it,but disagree on WHY and HOW the constitution protects it.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   It is simple, nothing to read into! I am not just picking out a part of it, the whole thing is plain as the nose on your face.. I am not going to debate  what the second amendment means to you or the courts. It was the intent of our founding fathers to let the Government know, they are not to control the peoples right to keep and bare arms.... END OF STORY!!!    The Federal and State Governments have over stepped there rights out lined by the Constitution of the United States.. It is not up for the Judicial system to interpret the Constitution..  That is the problem with everyone, they are allowing the Judicial system to interpret the Constitution.. That is NOT there job, they are only there to enforce LAWS not to change or intrepid the Construction to fit there AGENDA!
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2011, 06:23:08 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit..  Although I have a CCW for several States.  This is where I think the Government is over stepping there authority. The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand what the laws say, but they are laws created by people not following the Constitution.

 I actually disagree with your reading of it. By that logic,it applies ONLY to militia as that's what its talking about. The supreme court feels otherwise and has ruled that its a personal right to self defense. However,if we are just looking at an exact reading of it,its about militias.

  Consider this statement as an analogy. "The right to be secure in ones person being necessary to a free and just society,the right to use deadly force shall not be infringed." Sweet,that means that if this were in the constitution I could go randomly shooting and killing people right? Of course not. You cant just choose the part of the statement you like. One person might read that as being a right to be secure in ones person and say it only means that that security must be provided. They might say that the right to use deadly force is obsolete and that the police will do that for me. By the same logic you use,someone trying to beat a murder charge could say it provides them a right to kill indiscriminately (clearly that is absurd). I'm not comparing the right to carry guns to the right to kill people of course,only that the logical structure of the two statements is identical,and my statement is made to demonstrate how the logic is flawed by highlighting the absurdity.

 The full statement however is reasonable. It posits that its acceptable to kill to protect yourself. The two parts MUST be taken together. If you insist upon a LITERAL exact reading of the constitution,then you are incorrect and the 2nd Amendment ONLY gives you the right to carry guns insofar as it furthers the goal of having a militia. It could be argued that you have a personal right to small arms so that you can form a millitia,or that you have a personal right to them so that you will be skilled in their use should the time come that the millitia needs to be called up. Your right to carry those arms would similarly be restricted to the millitia. It would be perfectly acceptable to say that they had to be locked up and disassembled so that they could not readily be used for self defense. Its not plausible that seconds or minutes could count when the militia was called up. 15 minutes to unlock and assemble your weapon would be fine to stop an invading army. A right to carry a handgun for self defense has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a militia.

 Consider,if the 2nd amendment is about a personal right to self defense,then why does it even mention the militia. If we read only the second part,then what does the first part mean?

 The reality is,Heller was as much of a "activist" court decision as Roe vs Wade was. If you feel that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution exactly as written with no room for interpretation of intent,then the decision in Dc vs Heller was wrong. In short,the personal right to self defense is really considered to be implicit in the 2nd amendment the same way a right to privacy is considered implicit in the constitution. All the 2nd Amendment guarantees in its literal wording is that the Federal Government cannot deny you the weapons that you need to form a militia. Ironically,the Supreme Court very clearly ruled that it CAN in fact deny you those weapons. The rest,self defense,concealed carry,hunting any any other use of guns,if they are to be protected by the constitution must be "read into it" in the same manner that the very people that want these rights affirmed complain about when its done with issues they oppose.

 I personally am all for personal rights to own and carry guns,just as it seems you are,but my views on firearms rights are not in conflict with my views on the constitution.

 In this case we agree on WHAT and even agree the constitution should protect it,but disagree on WHY and HOW the constitution protects it.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   It is simple, nothing to read into! I am not just picking out a part of it, the whole thing is plain as the nose on your face.. I am not going to debate  what the second amendment means to you or the courts. It was the intent of our founding fathers to let the Government know, they are not to control the peoples right to keep and bare arms.... END OF STORY!!!    The Federal and State Governments have over stepped there rights out lined by the Constitution of the United States.. It is not up for the Judicial system to interpret the Constitution..  That is the problem with everyone, they are allowing the Judicial system to interpret the Constitution.. That is NOT there job, they are only there to enforce LAWS not to change or intrepid the Construction to fit there AGENDA!

 So why then,if they mean to say ONLY "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" did they instead say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 The other amendments are not written like this. The first amendment is not qualified. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." that's very strait forward. The only questions arise when for instance your free speech rights conflict with mine or for instance of you go into an unruly crowd and incite them to riot or cause injury or property damage. In other words when you use your free speech to infringe upon other peoples rights.

 Similarly the tenth amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." and in fact,this is pretty straightforward. The arguments that fall under this amendment are not about what it means by "powers" or "prohibited" but whether some text in the constitution grants or prohibits the action in question.   

The second amendment though is qualified. It absolutely does not state "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". It qualifies that statement by saying that it is BECAUSE of the necessity of a militia that it must not be. YOU personally are interpreting the constitution as per your agenda by ignoring the entire first clause the amendment and the supreme court did the same when they decided that a statement referring to arms in general and militias in specific,but not mentioning self defense at all created a personal right to use deadly force for self defense.  Perhaps it does,and perhaps that's what was intended,and in fact,many of the documents at the time seem to support this. What does NOT support (or contradict for that matter) this is the text of the 2nd Amendment itself.

If we are to take a literal reading of the Constitution,then the real question is whether the first amendment is a right given to the states,or the people. I would say by that literal reading it is of course a right given to the states,which will insure that the states have the tools at hand to organize militias whether they want those tools or not.(because militias were organized at the state level,then delegated to the local level) Perhaps it DOES mean that the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms at all. Still,that has nothing to do with a personal right to self defense. Furthermore,the phrase "Keep and bear arms" was typically used in a military context. To keep and bear arms was likely meant in the context of being part of the militia. If that is the case,then it would probably prevent the federal government for instance from restricting the use of arms during militia training or perhaps even personal training. In other words,they cant stop you from getting together and training,or carrying them to or from the training site etc. (all very real ways they have tried to ban guns in some jurisdictions) Really,any personal right to self defense would stem from the constitutions silence on the matter and the question of whether such a right exists at all. No where in the constitution does it mention a right to self defense,yet most rational people will believe we have one.

 Furthermore,the right to self defense is only tangentially related to "arms". If there were no weapons at all,we would still have this right. Its a fairly straightforward argument that if someone tries to for instance push me off a building and in defending myself I push him off as well,I was exercising my right to defend myself. Picking up a stick or grabbing a utility knife is no different. The argument that I should be able to carry a weapon intended for this purpose follows rather naturally as if I cannot be armed,then I am being deprived of the opportunity to defend myself should a situation arise where I have an opportunity to exercise that right.

 In short,if I have a right to defend my life using deadly force,of which there is a long standing tradition going back to the beginnings of civilization,then the personal right to have a weapon (not just a gun,but any appropriate weapon) to defend myself with stems from that,not from the second amendment.

 Similarly the right to privacy that many jurists hold we have,could be argued to be implicit in the constitution. The 4th amendment for instance,protecting us from illegal search and seizure is simply a reflection of this. This is certainly consistent with the fact that the framers felt that the these amendments were unnecessary and only added them as a compromise to those states that wanted certain rights spelled out. They felt that spelling them out would cause exactly the problem that it has. They felt ,and wrote as such,that if they spelled out certain rights,then it might be claimed that ONLY those rights were given. The 10th amendment says otherwise. Its rather explicit that we have other rights NOT spelled out explicitly in the constitution and it states that those rights belong to the states or the people. So the question then is who determines what those rights are. Someone has to or else we really don't have them. What are the? The implicit right to privacy the courts hold that we have, is one such example. Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned,except that the 10th amendment is very clear that such un-named implicit things exist.

Similarly the personal right to self defense stems from this,NOT the 2nd amendment. In fact there is a good argument to be made that the framers felt that the rights granted by the 2nd amendment were so,regardless of whether or not the amendment was added. Again,it was a compromise to get some states to sign on. The argument of the framers of the constitution was that these rights and countless many others existed REGARDLESS of the constitution and that the constitution simply delegated certain of these powers to the federal government. (such as the right to regulate interstate commerce). The constitution seems to presuppose many rights,and then spell out a few which are delegated to states or the Federal Government. The 10th amendment along with the necessary and proper clause COULD however be construed as giving the government authority to decide if certain rights exist as the 10 amendment gives the constitution jurisdiction to ensure that those rights are protected and its not plausible to do so if its not determined what those rights are.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2011, 07:29:43 PM »
You are an example of what is wrong with this county. You want to intrepid the Constitution, and make it fit what you think it should say..
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2011, 07:34:11 PM »
Also you don't have to cut and paste the Constitution, I know what it says.. I work as a lobbyist, and am a co-founder of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots with over 2500 members, and fight what our elected officials are doing to destroy the Constitution everyday!
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 04:05:04 AM »
I expect LEO to be fully armed at all times.  If I lived in a high crime area, I would be armed, but really I would find a better place to live. My point is that even though I have a right to do something it doesn't mean that I need to exercise or flaunt that right. I have a right to free speech/assembly but I have never stood on a street corner holding a sign in protest.   I am not going to be carrying a weapon into school unless I am teaching hunters safety.  I am not going to church armed.  I am not carrying a gun into a bar or into a store.  Why should I?  I live in a little peace of heaven in rural America.  In my 60 years of life in America I have never been in a bad situation.  Quite frankly, if people saw me armed in a store they would think I had gone of my rocker.  If you feel threatened where you live, go ahead and carry everywhere.  It is your right. 

Thats fine assuming all shooting take place in high crime areas, but this is the far from the truth in our world today, universities, schools, grocery stores, in good areas (as seen on TV, multiple times). All it takes is one nut. And this is not including terrorists. I dont think anyone is trying to convince you to carry, just that it is your right to do so, dont take the rights of others away because you dont want to excercise your rights.

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 04:24:25 AM »
  If it's such an important issue, you'd check the policies BEFORE becoming a customer not after.   

   I find it funny how many make it such a huge issue yet they themselves cannot carry where they work.  Happy to take the $ from a place that doesn't allow the guns but WHOA if another place has policies against it.   

Wow, I guess why should we pay, (with our hard earned money) to have someone strip us of our constitutional rights when we walk in the door, Crazy talk. Work is different because we voluntaraly go to earn money.

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 04:57:53 AM »
I guess it all hangs on what the founding fathers mean by the word MILITIA, it seems the definition has changed since then, and the true definition still applies outside the USA, (ex, iraq, iran, afganistan, ect.ect, they are never seen in a good light on the news, not like our national guard)

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 08:34:31 AM »
The NG (militia act of 1906) was meant to replace the state militia  or at least I believe it to be the meant purpose. The purposeful meaning of the militia can best be answered by reading the militia act of 1792, (never repealed as far as I know). Militias were founded with the earliest european immigration (invasion?   ;) )to the Americas. With the largest growth probably during the Queen Anne wars and the seven years wars (F&I) when France and England both released prison inmates (as well as immigrants) for passage to and the bolstering of their militias in N.America, the numbers too occupy more land. Modern militia?? I suppose its description could differ depending on who is asked. I consider myself as militia in the sense that when I was discharged from active duty, there was not one person at Ft Dix, who said to me;"remember the oath you took to defend the Constitution against all aggressors?, well, forget about it."   I'm only still a student of our Constitution and by no means an expert on the various acts and their "legal" descriptions, but IMHO thats my take. Others MMV depending on individual driving habits.  ;)