Property rights according to The Blade

In an anti-gun editorial in today's Blade, an argument is made that property rights are violated by the new gun law. The Ohio Castle Doctrine will prevent landlords from forbidding tenents to have guns. The Blade says this is an abrogation of private property rights. How duplicitous of The Blade!

The paragraph in question states, "A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080614/OPINION02/806...

In the above paragraph, substitute "bar owner" for "landlord", and "customers" for "tenants". You get the same argument for property rights but in a form that The Blade would reject. I am fed up with The Blade using phony arguments to advance their positions. They aren't for private property rights unless it meets their pre-ordained prejudices.

Here is the paragraph rewritten with the relevant words replaced:
A third provision in the law prohibits bar owners from allowing customers to smoke in their bars. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Customers have the right to choose where they drink, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a bar owner may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no fighting, no swearing or destroying property, no drugs, and, until this law goes into effect, smoking on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit fighting, soon they will not be able to allow smoking on their properties.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

This is typical of The Toledo Blade, who have been against freedom for as long as I can remember. Certainly since Block bought the paper, The Blade has favored the socialist, fascist agenda.

Laws placing restrictions on guns and the right to bear arms along with the right to defend yourself from harm were put in place because of racism. Violent oppression, abuse and murder of African-Americans was a way of life on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, and the white oppressors found unarmed victims a whole lot easier to terrorize than those that were armed and willing to put some lead in the air. Since the whites held office, the very first thing they had to do was pass laws against firearms, then proceed with selective enforcement. That's how gun laws got started, and is the same reason marijuana was criminalized.

I note that no one will have their name affixed to this piece of anti-freedom trash, which is characteristic of the anti-freedom crowd. Take special notice of any editorials or published opinions that champion freedom or that support an unpolluted version of the Bill Of Rights, and you'll see that such articles are always signed or attributed to a particular individual or author. Funny, isn't it, how oppressors always have to hide their identity.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

...the Blockade has it "sdrawkcab-ssa".

No landlord has the right to deny your civil liberties. He can't control your freedom of speech or your rights to publish. He can't stop your right to keep and bear arms. He can't subject you to unreasonable search and seizure. Etc.

I'd have just agreed silently with Maddie, but this sort of stuff burns my britches and I refuse to remain silent while this popular (but UNCONSTITUTIONAL) assault occurs on my civil rights.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.