daswig

Yes, but at the same time by doing so, they are assuming a higher standard of care to insure that the people who they have mandated to be disarmed are adequately protected from harm.

Willravel

Unless your job requires it, no. I'm all for gun rights, but bringing a gun to work is like bringing a gun to school or church. It's an innapropriate time. Put it in a locked box in your car if you don't feel safe or going hunting or what have you.

timalkin

I'd like to protect myself from the crazy whackos who shoot up the workplace when they get fired. If you can tell me when and where a crime will happen, please do. I'd like to carry my firearm then and ONLY then.

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

connyosis

Ok, so park the car outside the company property.

Yeah, and other stores where the clerk has a gun never gets robbed. You're right, silly me.

Whatever you say daswig, whatever you say...

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

connyosis

Because we all know this happens ALL THE TIME. Right?
What about the people that feel uncomfortable with their coworkers bringing guns to work? They should just suck it up?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

daswig

What's wrong with an adult bringing a gun to school or church? You DO realize that several "school shootings" were STOPPED by school administrators or adult students getting their guns, don't you? A prime example of this was the Law School of the Appalacians shooting in Wise, Va, where the shooter was confronted by another student that got his gun from his car and took the shooter into custody.

"No gun zones" are just another way of saying "criminal-safe zones".

daswig

Maybe they need therapy to get over their Hopolophobia. Remember, Freud said "fear of weaponry is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity."

daswig

So the company then assumes liability for their worker's safety, right?

Which store is more likely to get robbed? One with a sign on the door that says "No guns allowed, and our employees are unarmed", or one with a sign on the door that says "CCW holders are welcome, and our employees may be armed too"?

Are you denigrating my religious beliefs?

connyosis

And somewhere around there...this discussion died. Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

uncle phil

good lord, do some of you people actually think like this and believe in this stuff?

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

daswig

Yes, and some people still believe that the Second Amendment is still "good law".

You might check the number of States in the US that have gone from "may issue" or "no issue" CCW to "shall issue" CCW since 1986...and what has happened to their crime rates since then.

You also might check out the caselaw on what exact duty the police have to protect individuals, even high-risk individuals, from criminality. You will be shocked at what you find. The old NWA song "911's a joke" doesn't miss the mark by far...

uncle phil

/me applauds the majority...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

daswig

Given that something like 37 or 38 states now have "shall issue" (or less strict, Vermont and Alaska require no permit for CCW) CCW, is sounds like the majority of US states think CCW is a good thing. IIRC, only four states and DC now completely prohibit CCW(except, of course, for government officials, some pigs being more equal than others). So, is that the majority you are applauding?

BTW, the following states are AT LEAST "shall issue"...

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Conneticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

uncle phil

wow.......

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

daswig

Would you care to guess what happened to those state's crime rates after "shall issue" CCW passed?

I'll provide you with a hint: The VPC's "Blood will run in the streets!" pronouncements haven't exactly been proven even remotely correct, with the anti-gun groups now struggling to "prove" that CCW does not lead to a decrease in criminality after CCW reform.

It's interesting to note that a law abiding person has a better chance of being illegally killed by a police officer in the US than of being illegally killed by a CCW holder, despite the fact that there are many more CCW holders than police officers. In fact, according to the statistics published by Texas DPS, status as a CCW holder is an excellent predictive factor for non-criminality, with CCW holders being far less likely to commit a crime than either the population at large or police officers. Kind of makes you think...

Elphaba

Miss Kitty with an assault weapon? I'm impressed.

daswig

Ah. Ad homs based upon my avatar. Nice Argument, you must be right, and everything I said must be wrong, because you made fun of my avatar.

Paq

actually..there is precedence for companies to be liable for the safety of the employee while he is on company property, including the parking lot, so yes, hte company does assume liability for worker safety while on company property

Back to your regularly scheduled NRA meeting

__________________
Live.

Chris

daswig

I know there is. And all that it will take for this to stop is for a company to be sued and lose for failing to protect their employees while having a "no guns at work" policy. Eventually, it will happen. Look at how Texas became "Shall Issue"...it had to do with a person who left her gun in her car to obey the law during the Luby's Massacre...and her parents died as a result. IIRC, she's in Congress now. Another interesting thing is how Lowe's got rid of their "no CCW" policy...a CCW holder who had left his gun in his car was attacked in the parking lot, and they retracted the policy when somebody pointed out just how much civil liability their policy brought on them...

Willravel

An adult bringing a gun to church is disrespectful. No one will convince me otherwise.
I might need a source for this case. Was the second gun toting student charged along with the first?
So guns belong everywhere, eh? Well maybe we should allow guns on planes. You know, so we can prevent terrorism.

Paq

^^^^ more eloquent than I can be at this late hour

__________________
Live.

Chris

meembo

I think that employers and any other private party has the right to exclude weapons from their location. I don't allow guns in my house -- but I shoot them at the range. I don't want guns at church. I don't want co-workers to have guns in their possession at work either.

I believe guns as weapons are fundamantally offensive in nature (as opposed to defensive). I sincerely value the right of a person to own and use one, but there are limits that begin in the shared spaces of society, when we are not at home.

I'm thinking about social spaces we typically inhabit, such as work and church. Though Wayne LaPierre starts talking gun owners being banned from gas stations and cafes, I think that argument is spurious and doesn't acknowledge the issues of personal security which non-gun-carriers feel.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Jinn

Was daswig's banning at all related to this thread? Reading the first pages, I completely agreed with the group saying "my house, my rules." However, I was also convinced by daswig's argument about CCW laws and the rate of crime after they've been instated. The argument even seemed very level-headed in the *ahem* blatant provocation present. Was "wow......." really an appropriate response in an adult discussion? How about "good lord, do some of you people actually think like this and believe in this stuff?" I'm not stoking the fire, but that's not exactly the discourse I'm used to seeing. Just my 2 cents.

A gun is a deadly weapon, and I'd likely be uncomfortable if I believed the guy in the cubicle over had a pistol in his shirt. However, I think a responsible company would provide a SECURE working environment and a place ON-PREMISES for locking up a weapon. If their employees are legitimately worried about their security, they should be allowed to carry one -- up to the building. What's to say that the parking lot of the company isn't a horribly unsafe place? What if you locked your gun in your car and got attacked in the parking lot? Is it the employer's fault for "their house" being insecure, or the employer's fault for disarming their employee?

I actually worked on a "no-gun" property as a uniformed security guard, and I must admit that made me a bit nervous. There's nothing like walking around in a uniform by a sign that says "NO GUNS ON PREMISES" to attract all the attention you don't want. Especially the time when a punk kid swung a 6" lead pipe at me, knowing I wasn't armed. It's a thin line, and I think at least a little consideration should be taken for BOTH sides in this case.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

SirLance

There is a difference in that what NRA is doing is attempting to get people to adopt a very broad version of the amendment. What the amendment actually says is:

Fair housing would preclude you specifically from refusing to rent to someone because you disagree with their sexual preference or their choice to live together while not married. It also protects your right to refuse to rent to someone with a bad credit history, or to someone who uses your property for illegal purposes.

Refusing to serve gays at your business is also specifically prohibited, if you do it because they are gay.

However, such lifestyle choices are not always protected. A church doesn't have to admit gays, and neither does the boy scouts.

The second amendment doesn't guarantee that you can keep a gun in your car at work. Businesses have the right and the legal responsibility to use thier assests for the benefit of the stockholders. This is why your phone calls, computer usage, usage of company vehicles, and comings and goings can be monitored.

If your company puts a policy in writing, and that policy does not violate law or public policy, or create an undue burden, then it will be upheld by the courts, every time.

So, if you work for Conoco, don't have a gun in your car at work!

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

connyosis

That's a compromise I could accept. I'd be very uncomfortable with my coworkers wearing guns, (I mean, who's to say they wont freak out and start shooting all over the place ) but if the company allowed them to bring their guns to the building entrance and drop them off to be locked in a safe gun cabinet, I'd say that's meeting both sides halfway.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Marvelous Marv

Yes, I seem to remember that.
/sarcasm

I assume you interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean something different than the definitions in the dictionary.

I'm not quite sure why you're explaining this to me. I'd have preferred an explanation on the propriety of the government forcing, for example, an 80-year-old widow to rent to someone that daily violates that widow's religious beliefs.

And you explained this because ....?



That's what's being debated in this thread. However, the second amendment was intended to do exactly that. And to act as a check upon oppressive governments.

All of which are provided at company expense, unlike personal firearms.

That's the whole point. We're debating whether or not this company policy violates the second amendment.

xepherys

Hmm, no... It's their property... what the laws of the state and the constitution of the nation say goes. They can't make murder legal on their property. They cannot declare themselves a tax-free zone. They cannot sell alcohol without a proper permit. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR property.



Again, no... they cannot have conditions of employment that are in conflict with our rights and freedoms. This is, literally, no different than saying a company can have a "condition of employment" that you can't be black or asian or female. It's a federally protected, constitutional right.



That isn't an issue with this... that is an issue with the way judges allow the legal system to be maniuplated. Sadly we live in a very litigious society right now. But honeslty, the law would (should) hold the gunman responsible, not the company.



It's not about NEEDING to carry a gun... it's about being ALLOWED to.

ScottKuma

True - they can't make illegal behavior legal. However, they CAN limit legal behavior within their property.

Your employer CAN tell you that you can't drink [alcohol] during work hours, even though that's LEGAL.

They CAN tell you that you can't wear cutoff jeans to work, even though it's LEGAL to do so.

They CAN tell you not to hurt their business by telling their customers exactly what you think of them, even though your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.

You have a right to carry firearms in public, not necessarily in private locations...and certainly not where specifically prohibited by other law(airports, post offices, etc.).

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

Lebell

I wasn't going to bother with this thread, but what the heck.

IMO, if you are cleared by a background check and are allowed by the laws of your state to carry a concealed firearm, then yes, you should be allowed to wherever you are.

You don't ask a policeman to remove their pistol when they enter your workplace, church, etc.

But wait, you say, they are better trained in firearm safety.

No, not usually.

Many cops fire their guns once or twice a year, just enough to stay certified. Whereas a typical CCW owner may go to the range and practice monthly, if not weekly.

If you can't carry your gun with you everywhere, then it defeats the whole purpose of having a CCW.

And that's exactly why gun opponents try to limit permit holders in ways like this. They don't believe in CCW at all.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

hamsterdancer

I think you left part of it out, its "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The "people" are you and me. It's also interesting to note that unlike the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law", the language of the Second Amendment does not seem to limit the right enumerated to only protection from governmental action.

MSD

Nobdy needs to carry a gun. Most of the time we're perfectly safe without them. If the unlikely situation arises that we are the victims of violence, we're just as free to become cause-of-death statistics as we are to carry guns to prevent that from happening
I do go places between work and home. Between thsoe two, I could walk through a dark alley, be carjacked, or get mugged. The issue is that this kind of policy deprives us of a lot more than our right to carry at work.
Not quite. If, for example, they have a warrant to search for an illegally imported giant panda, and the y search in your jewelry box, they're overstepping their bounds. On the other hand, if they have a warrant to search for a few pounds of weed and they find a stack of counterfeit money in a place where the drugs could have been found, then it's legal.
School shootings have been stopped by armed resistance, and if a few teachers at Columbine HS had been armed, then the shooters could possibly have been stopped before the police arrived and waited a few hours to go in.
They get robbed, but unarmed clerks can't defend themselves. Not everyone is happy with the cash, some shoot anyway. Two jewelrs in my town were gunned down by a robber as they knelt against the wall and pled for their lives by someone who wasn't satisfied with the half million dollars' worth of stuff he stole. During this time the silent alarm had failed to alert police, some of who were at the station a block away.
It amazes me that so many people expect policies against guns at the workplace to stop shootings. If they're willing to break the law by killing everyone in the fucking office, they're not going to be stopped by a policy that lets the company fire them for having a gun. If there's a gun safe, there has to be a big enough hole in the window to shoot the guard and get himself a shitload of ammo and backup weapons. If you don't have a gun on you, you can't defend yourself. The good guys with guns aren't the ones you have to worry about. It's perfectly acceptable for an employer to require a CCW for you to be allowed to carry at work, and nobody is arguing that. You should be supporting those guys because they're the ones who are going to shoot back when crazy Johnnie from accounting gets pissed off by how much less he makes than you and decides to hunt you down.

highthief

I notice no one wants to touch that one.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

cj2112

I'll touch it...

Yes, I believe that we should make our pilots federal police officers and arm them. There are several companies currently making ammunition that could be used on planes w/o over penetrating, or going through the structure of the plane (Glaser and MagSafe are two good examples). I also believe that we should allow law enforcement personnel and CCW holders to carry on planes, provided that their weapons are loaded w/ the previously mentioned ammuniton. I don't think that John Q. Public should be allowed, but qhat I'm suggesting here is a group of people who have demonstrated that they are stable, not criminals, and not likely to become criminals.

highthief

So, allow the government to carry guns in planes but not allow John Q Public the right to defend himself ... isn't that what the 2nd ammendment fights against?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Lebell

This was addressed, please read more carefully.

J. Q. has (or should have) the option to obtain a CCW permit.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cj2112

The purpose of not allowing the general population to carry on board planes is that I believe that there is a need for a more thorough background check for this privilege/responsibility. A concealed weapons permit (CCW) satisfies that need in my mind, and as Lebell said, John Q. Public should be allowed the right to obtain said permit.

Paq

guns on airplanes...the only people i'd trust with a gun on an airplane is the pilot, honestly. Sorry, but 'accidents happen' costs lives. and yeah, i know, once, airplanes were taken over by people with mere boxcutters and a gun would have possibly have prevented a horrible situation, but in normal, everyday circumstances, i firmly believe a gun would pose a huge risk. Discharging a firearm in an enclosed cavity flying 30,000 feet in the air has very very few positive outcomes. I really don't think the framers of the constitution imagined people having to fight an oppressive government while 30,000 feet above the ground.

maybe it's just me, but i really would not feel safer with johnQ public packing heat on an airplane with my butt in it..

__________________
Live.

Chris

pan6467

Plain and simple....... NO you don't.

I find it amazing these "pro gun rights" people totally disregard anyone else's rights. If I own a business and I say no guns and I mean no guns then you bringing a gun on my property shows great disrespect, a "fuck you" attitude towards my rights as to what I want on my property, and a callous self serving ignorant behavior that most of you accuse those who are in favor of gun control as having.

Moderation in everything. If you show respect then respect shall be given.... if you choose to fuck with people's wishes and say, "fuck you I have a right to carry this gun anywhere I wish" then you are creating self prophesizing problems and gun control then becomes an option to which I may favor moreso than your "rights".

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

FoolThemAll

I'm generally a believer in gun rights, practically and as a matter of principle. But I agree with this 100%.

The building isn't your property, and you don't have a right to be there. If there are conditions for being a guest in any particular place, follow those conditions or abstain from being a guest.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

hamsterdancer

The same holds true for private property owners saying "I don't want African-Americans or gays (or whomever) on my property". Is that acceptable? Based upon your position of "moderately" depriving people of their civil liberties, I would have to say that such a conclusion is the logical extension of your argument. Or is the 14th Amendment somehow more valuable than the Second Amendment?

If you open your property to the public, you have to accept that the public will come....including parts of the public that you may not want. And that's simply too bad for the property owner.