Thanks for the complement. No, seriously. But as someone said, the two aren't in conflict.

I find it prudent to carry a gun the same way I find it prudent to have a spare tire in my car and a CPR mask in my first aid kit.

So far, I've never needed the CPR mask and I've only needed the spare once. And so far, I've never needed my gun.

But in the same candor, can you honestly say you've never read an article of innocent people being gunned down by some lunatic? And can you honestly say that you've never wondered in one fashion or another if it might have been you?

I remember reading just the other day on FARK how a CCW holder saved some woman from being bludgened to death by her ex. That is one story. I can get online and produce hundreds of stories where guns have stopped crimes.

Or just turn on the news tonight and look at the psychos looting in New Orleans. If I were in that town, I would have my pistol close at hand as I ferried supplies or people or whatever.

Like a flat tire or a heart attack, wishing all that away or putting your head in the sand and hoping it will never be you won't make it necessarily so.

Related, to that, I actually would support a stricter registration policy for gun ownership IFF the anti-gun side would cede what I believe the 2nd to mean: an individual right to gun ownership.

That way fewer guns in the hands of criminals without disarming the rest of us.

I've been waiting, but I haven't seen a discussion of this yet. I apologize if it's been posted somewhere else.

Can anyone (Pan? ZenTom?) convince me that the bad guys wouldn't have guns in New Orleans if only there were better gun control laws there?

Here's what Neal Boortz had to say. I can't link to it, but you can find it by going to Boortz and reading his Friday, 9/2 column. Be forewarned that he has quite a bit to say about the charges of racism that are emerging, and he uses blunt language.

Here's what he had to say about guns:

That's a pretty good summation of why most of the gun owners I know are so against the nullification of the second amendment. You just never know when you're going to need your rights.

Especially when you see the movies posted here and many other places in which police either joined in the looting, or did nothing to stop crimes.

I think my signature pretty much sums up my opinion of gun control, however I take issue with such moronic statements as "One shot through the door to take out that first looter and the rest would run." and "The gun control loons....
The bit about one shot through the front door just pisses me off. This type of attitude is exactly what the proponents of gun control are afraid of, and the type of statements that are used against those of us who are intelligent enough to at least wait to see if it's not a rescue worker trying to save us. "One shot through the front door" is also known as murder.
Boortz makes a couple good points, however he is such a moron that his good points are completely washed out by his idiocy. With people like him on the pro-gun side, the gun control side needs not do anything, he'll do it for them.

Ahem just a portion of where CCW is forbidden....... as published on: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=OH

Please note highlights added by me.

So if I choose to have no carry on my property I am discriminating as if I were not serving other races or ethnicities etc????? State of Ohio says differently......

Like I said, I don't give a damn about guns..... BUT PEOPLE TELLING ME THEIR RIGHT TO CARRY ON MY PROPERTY SUPERCEDES MY RIGHTS, PISSES ME OFF TO WHERE I'LL BACK GUN CONTROL LAWS.

RESPECT MY RIGHTS.... I'LL RESPECT YOURS.... SHIT ON MINE I'LL SHIT ON YOURS.

Someone else and I had an argument in another thread where I said it was illegal in Ohio to carry a gun in a bar.... he also chose to not believe me.

First of all, I don't think that being intelligent or decent is in any way in conflict with the desire to carry a firearm. If I gave that impression I apologise.

The wish to be protected in turbulent times is a reasonable response to my question.

But - doesn't the 2nd amendment say something about gun ownership being tied to organised militia?

Where is this militia in New Orleans?

Instead of desperate people trying to survive in stricken areas, we have desperate people with guns in stricken areas. Does that help or hinder the situation? Which would you prefer?

If I were there, knowing that a proportion of the people had firearms, then yes, I would like to be one of those people with firearms. But I'd much prefer to be there in a situation where noone had firearms at all, or where those who did have firearms were part of an organised militia who, in the absence of government, can use those weapons if necessary, to help establish some form of order.

Going back to the question posed, how does bringing a gun to work help anyone? If we are worried about civil order breaking down, then isn't it reasonable to limit gun ownership to the extent of someone's private property?

I still don't fully understand the mentality that feels the need to carry a deadly weapon as part of my daily life.

No it doesn't.

They have been disarmed by anti-self defense, big government worshiping liberals.

The activity in New Orleans is the direct result of the disarmament of law abiding citizens...and the insistance of a beaurocracy, that it is your best option for safety. It has clearly failed.

There has yet to be a ban that has succeeded in achieving this fantasy.

The result of every ban, ever enacted, anywhere, by any anyone, has been to reduce the ability of the law abiding to access these tools of self defense. It has also resulted, interestingly, in those opposed to the actions of their government from doing anything meanful about. Those who commit crimes with firearms, have never, and will never be deterred. Criminal gun use has not been reduced at all. EVER.

-bear

PS...

I'm 100 percent in favor of gun owner's rights (including to the right to carry concealed weapons) and I disagree with this policy for the reasons explained by daswig and MrSelfDestruct, but I have to support property rights of the company on this one. I wouldn't object if people decided to boycott the company in an effort to get this policy changed, but the company should not be forced to change this policy by the government.

I believe that private property owners (and that includes businesses, private schools, etc.) should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Your property is yours, and no other private citizen has a right to be in your home or business.

Every American citizen has an individual right to be treated equally under the law, but we have no right to demand to be treated equally by private citizens on private property.

Yes it does. Here's the quote:

If you want to afford people the right to bear arms, then the current situation in New Orleans must sound like heaven, since with no regulation, and the looting of WalMart, everyone has access to deadly weaponry.

Still, jbear, what has any of this to do with carrying a firearm to work?

the quote does not say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....it says the right of the people.

After much thought, and reading of peoples opinions, here is the compromise I would most likely make if my employer were to ban guns on the property (yes i know i said i would comply earlier). I would most likely keep loaded handgun locked in the trunk of my car (just like I do now). If my employer asked to search my vehicle, I would poloitely decline. If I were terminated for refusing to consent to a search, I would challenge the termination, and the policy that they felt allowed them to do this, in a court of law. I wouldn't ask for 50 million dollars or anything ridiculous but I would definitely challenge the policy. I don't currently carry my gun into the building I work in, this isn't because I've been asked not to, but because of the type of work I do(I work for a cabinet company and I was working in the shop, I recently was moved into the office), I didn't want to expose my weapon to the didn't want to expose my gun to the damaging effects of the sawdust in the air

well this is a hypothetical question since I live in the UK.
Let's just say I'm calmer now but in my younger days if I'd had a gun at work I would have killed 50% of the workforce and then drove out to the most annoying customers of all time and shot them in the feet, knees, hands, groin and head so no having guns at work isn't a good idea :rolleyes:

If the aim is to have a murder rate like the US then hell yeah give every worker an AK-47 ;)

so your saying that your employer having a rule against guns would have prevented you from committing murder? ( an act which your country already has a law against) Did your employer have a policy preventing you from bringing a knife to work, how about a baseball bat, how about a glass bottle, how about a brick, how about a nuclear bomb, how about a...well i'm sure you get my point.

I again have to find this funny yet pathetically sad.....

Funny in that the guns rights people are vehemently for the most part the most vocal about property rights and the individual's rights........

Sad in that they feel their rights supercede anyone else's and they refuse to respect anyone else's.

As I have pointed out in Ohio's laws (and being one of the more liberal gun states I'm sure most states have similar laws)..... the private owner can set his own rules and regulations about weapons on his property.

The second somebody sues another saying they do not have that right, they are asking for government control over rights..... and showing immense disrespect over a person.... yet they demand that same respect...... IT'S BS.

Again, if I choose not to have guns on my property, I expect you to respect my wishes and my rights. Don't make this a pissing war because once one of us asks government to step in and make the decision...... we will both lose.

I'll never lose the right to determine if I want guns on my property or not..... but we will both lose other rights and perhaps our friendship over stupidity and selfish, holier than thou behaviour.

the employer doesn't have rules about such items but the laws in this country do. Possession of an offensive weapon is against the law here.


How many people am I gonna kill with a baseball bat compared to my automatic assault gun? Guns make killing a whole of a lot easier and the number of victims far more possible

Just how common do you think these are and how easy do you think they are to get?

I saw that someone in another thread thought that Walmart sold hand guns.

Misconceptions and bad information are bad things.

No, but what the framers actually meant by "the people" (whether it refers to individuals or the states) has been hotly debated over the years. Your individual right to bear arms may not equate to your state's right to maintain a militia.



The reason I discuss property rights in my post is because the second amendment has no relevence to this situation. The property rights enjoyed by Conoco to regulate what happens on their property take precedence. The Amendment speaks to what the GOVERNMENT can do. Not what a private property holder can allow or prohibit.

Your contention about what the second amendment protects is wrong, but your contention as to it's purpose (and that of most of the bill of rights) is exactly correct.

This is not germane.

That's my point. It doesn't. Conoco is not a governmental entity, therefore their refusal to allow firearms on their property is not a violation of the second amendment.

You also have to understand that an overwhelming public interest can preclude certain rights, which is why you can't take your gun into a courthouse. In this case, the interest is public safety.

of course bad information is bad. But the point is being missed.
I don't need a fully working Assault Rifle to kill lots of people anyway do I?
An automatic handgun is sufficient.
Heck I can reload a six shooter if I need to. But without a gun it's gonna be so much more difficult.
Don't worry I know where u r coming from. Gun fanatic.

Automatic handguns are also extremely rare and hard to get.

No, I didn't miss your point, but my response is two fold: first, terms ARE important, not only to discuss the issue intelligently, but also to understand what it is.

Second, I agree that guns make it easier, but according to Her Magisty's government, so do knives. Last time I checked, English lawmakers were alarmed by the increasing knife violence and where considering making it a crime to have kitchen knives over a certain length without a license.

The point is that you are addressing the symptoms of violence without addressing the root causes. If you outlaw knives, people WILL start using baseball bats. And if you outlaw those, then it will be sticks, then rocks, ad naseum.

The root causes for most gun violence remain poverty and drug use and their related scourge, gang activity. There is where you need to focus your efforts.

As to myself, I would hardly consider 3 long guns and 5 handguns "fanatical". But then again, maybe you do.

Do you have the right to have a gun at work?
No, and I can't think of one good reason I would want to.
I should note that I've always liked guns, own several and shoot a fair amount. It's shame there are places out there where people think they need to carry a gun everyday in order to feel safe.

I agree that it's the employers property and his rights trump your rights to carry on his property.

Much as I like my gun, I'm goin gto have to side with the businesses on this one. It's their land, they make the calls. You odn't like it, work somewhere else.