Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[Buckmark.35]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

Last post.

No smoking policy. Not against state law. Most leagues have it. I know of one person who was tossed from coaching for smoking around the kids.

Parents are ejected every day for things not against state law. Some are banned for the season for things not against state law.

How does that happen?

Some of you do not understand. They can keep you from participating. They won't throw your kid out or anything like that. They will just say YOU cannot participate because you violated League rules. You can watch the game from another field or parking lot or whatever, but you will not be where you want to be.

I see wait to see if it happens then go back to court.

I don't know if anyone replied to this yet or not, but people do not have a right to smoke. People do have a right to keep and bear arms. No local government ordinance or mandate can over-ride your RIGHTS. That's the basis of pre-emption. You can ban cigarettes. You can ban short skirts. You CANNOT ban firearms on public property.

EDIT: After I posted this I saw that Greg posted pretty much the same thing. My apologies for the reiteration.

[TaePo]

Before we get too wrapped-up in the situation(s) pro or con; we do ourselves a disservice if we ignore historical perspective.

In other words, what appears shocking, unbelievable or rebellious can in a matter of years actually prove to be, if not a pivotal moment, then one that marked a turning point.

We have many in our history of the U.S.

Suffrage, Louisiana Purchase, Seward's Folly (Alaska purchase from Russia), the Revolutionary War (eeks, we won!) and so on.

So we should approach all things with a grain of salt. Because the immediate fall-out is not necessarily what the historical judgement will be.

[Petalpusher]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

Rotz has already said that he didn't say these things and/or taken out of context.

However>>>

I see nothing wrong with this if he did say it.

I hope more people carry firearms..

Society would be safer.

They don't have a right to have "gun-free" soccer games at a public place.

If they want to have a "gun-free" zone they can buy some land and make there own private park..

I am a gun owner and a CC'er I agree with most the above EXCEPT..

Society would be safer.

Guns do not make our society safe they keep us safe from society.

Common sense would make our society safe.

OC is our right. I AGREE..

2nd amendment is our cause. I AGREE.

Being a nuisance to the public when supporting our cause or exercising our rights does not give our cause a good name.

I thought the plan was to get the word out that we are responsible adults exercising our rights, willing to slightly compromise for the greater good, willing to "educate" not "intimidate" the non gun owners so that they too can "protect" themselves and see our side. Instead of doing this we completely turn them off to any pro gun acivity! When they DO buy some land and make there own private park and your child's sporting event is in "gun-free zone" what will you do then?

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

OK, so if you are a fan and you say something to an umpire and he tosses you from the facility. You aren't going to go? Well if you don't the cops get called and they remove you. Didn't anybody here ever see that happen? Call the ACLU for trampling your first ammendant right, because that is what happened.

Depends what you say to the umpire. If you're acting in a disorderly manner, the cops get called and off you go. And "fighting words" are not protected by the 1A. What did the guy who got tossed say to the umpire?

. . . All I did was bring up what a private organization may be able to do while it is the authorized (or whatever you want to call it) user of a public field.

The moment they call the cops and the cops enforce their private rules, they have gone beyond being nothing more than a private organization.

If you rent a pavilllion in a park, can 20 other people come and use it while you are there? After all it is public property.

If you are granted an exclusive license to use a pavillion in a public park then yes you can exclude some participants for lawful reasons. Where your analogy breaks down is twofold: 1. excluding someone solely for carrying a gun is not a lawful reason and 2. you can't exclude anyone from an area other than the pavillion you have license to use.

Your analogy is more like some of the marches and protests. Marchers can obtain a permit to march down the middle of a street making some sort of parade (for example); peaceful protesters may line those same streets watching them walk by holding protest signs or whatever they do. The marchers can't make their own private rule that those they disagree with are not allowed to watch and call cops to have them removed. If the cops do come and start moving or arresting people doing nothing unlawful, they will get sued.

I will take Headcase's advice and stop commenting on this. He is a wise man.

Fair enough. I'm out.

[CQB]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

how much neg. rep have you gotten, CQB???

Just curious.

Only 3 negative reps.

Should that mean something to me? I'm wondering, because I don't know what the reps are all about and what they stand for.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by CQB

Only 3 negative reps.

Should that mean something to me? I'm wondering, because I don't know what the reps are all about and what they stand for.

In the grand scheme of things, its a way for people to say they agree/disagree privately and for you to see what people think of your posts/style/etc.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by mjfletcher

In the grand scheme of things, its a way for people to say they agree/disagree privately and for you to see what people think of your posts/style/etc.

Some people use it as a tool to "punish" others for conduct in one thread, which I hope is not the case with those that neg rep'd CQB in this thread. I was one of the three, and I stand by my reason for it, but knowing CQB's normal posting style, which this thread is not indicative of, he'll have 1 or 2 positive ratings from me before the month is over. Hell, he and I had what I thought was a nice conversation through PM becasue even though I really felt he crossed a line here, outside of this thread his posts have almost always been excellent.

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Some people use it as a tool to "punish" others for conduct in one thread, which I hope is not the case with those that neg rep'd CQB in this thread. <snip>.

Agreed. I certainly jope no one neg rep'd CQB or anyone else for that matter for this thread or any others. That is not the intent of the rep system. As I understand it, the system is there so the poster can recieve a quick note as to whther or not another member agrees or disagrees with your comments. I think I used neg rep twice in the last year. CQB is a good member and does not deserve to neg rep'd into oblivion for his views on this subject. If he does than so do I and others that agree with OC as the best choice for THEM.

Dave

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Some people use it as a tool to "punish" others for conduct in one thread, which I hope is not the case with those that neg rep'd CQB in this thread. I was one of the three, and I stand by my reason for it, but knowing CQB's normal posting style, which this thread is not indicative of, he'll have 1 or 2 positive ratings from me before the month is over. Hell, he and I had what I thought was a nice conversation through PM becasue even though I really felt he crossed a line here, outside of this thread his posts have almost always been excellent.

Thats why I said in the grand scheme, small people punishing through neg rep are small picture. I'll admit, I recently neg'd someone who was being an ass, and obviously going out of his way to do it, but i didn't intend it to be punishment and hopefully he didnt see it that way. If he did however, oh well thats on him.

I haven't had much direct interaction with CQB, but after pulling up his previous posts, I agree that this thread isn't the norm for him. We all have our bad days/weeks/whatever so I'll just assume thats what this is and that it'll blow over and he'll go back to posting like he always did.

Since I actually started looking at my rep's, i havent recieved any negatives, and have even recieved pos rep's from ppl that were on the opposite side of the issue from me (surprising at first, but not anymore). That tells me I'm posting in a way that contributes positively to the site which is why I keep an eye on my rep. If I start getting neg's consistently, that'll be an indication that I need to look at what I'm posting, how I'm coming across, and possibly rethink things before I continue. Its a useful tool for those who care about the site to see where they stand in the community through feedback and help others judge their own standing.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by Brown-Bear

Agreed. I certainly jope no one neg rep'd CQB or anyone else for that matter for this thread or any others. That is not the intent of the rep system. As I understand it, the system is there so the poster can recieve a quick note as to whther or not another member agrees or disagrees with your comments. I think I used neg rep twice in the last year. CQB is a good member and does not deserve to neg rep'd into oblivion for his views on this subject. If he does than so do I and others that agree with OC as the best choice for THEM.

Dave

I'll disagree with this somewhat. If he's being neg'd for his opinion, then no, he doesnt deserve that and its not a good use of the rep system. If he's being neg'd for the way he presented his opinion on the other hand, its a good use of the rep system.