Do you have the right to have a gun at work? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cj2112 · 09-01-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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..

So because a pilot has gone through the training to fly the airplane, he is magically more qualified than a person who has gone through the necessary training to carry a concealed gun? (which in my state includes a test to show that you can actually hit what your shooting at)

pan6467 · 09-01-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

So you are comparing a person's being, their ethnicity, to a thing they have an option to carry?????

That's like my saying I have the "constitutional right to free speech therefore I will go into Pat Robertson's church dressed in my Satanic wardrobe and preach from my Satanic Bible."

So if I am in a movie theatre and screaming at the top of my lungs the theatre cannot do anything, because I am exercising my Constitutional right to free speech????

That's not menacing, or public disturbance? That won't get me thrown in jail?

Is that the mentality, your way of thinking in above quoted post?

It's this mentality in your post that truly makes me anti-gun and pro-gun law.

Second amendment be damned..... I have the right to refuse service to anyone, and I have the right to have my employees work by rules I apply so long as I break no labor laws...... last time I checked having a gun at work was not a labor law or protected under such.

I have many rights guaranteed me by the Constitution.... but they stop whereupon they may infringe upon another's right. My right to not allow guns in my business supercedes any right to ignore it and carry a gun on my property.

Come to my business carrying a gun.... I ask you to leave.... you choose to stay, I call the cops, whose side do you think they will take?

Are you an idiot???? I'm sorry but comparing not wanting someone carrying a gun on my property to racism and prejudiced.... is the stupidest thing I have read on here.

pan6467 · 09-01-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Amazing isn't it? Some (a vast majority) of pro-gunners argue also for property rights, and yet they have this mentality? Fuck the owner's wishes I'll do as I damned well please......

LOL..... ahhhhh ain't disrespect of other's rights great so long as YOU get what you want?

pan6467 · 09-01-2005, 06:04 PM

And on another note, if employees or guests are allowed to carry guns into amusement parks, theatres, anywhere I go and choose to feel secure.... i won't shop there.

The owner has his rights, I have mine to boycott.

cj2112 · 09-01-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And on another note, if employees or guests are allowed to carry guns into amusement parks, theatres, anywhere I go and choose to feel secure.... i won't shop there.

The owner has his rights, I have mine to boycott.

interesting, I carry a gun into every amusement park i've been to, every time I take my kids to the movies (about once a month), every time I go to the grocery store, the mall, the park, pretty much everywhere. I don't carry my handgun into schools, courthouses, and the post office because the law specifically prohibits me from carrying guns in those places. Perhaps you should boycott every business in every state that issues concealed weapons permits. I guarantee you that if carrying a concealed handgun is legal in your state, that you have been in the same room with somebody carrying a gun more times than you can imagine.

hamsterdancer · 09-02-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

So you are comparing a person's being, their ethnicity, to a thing they have an option to carry?????

People have a constitutionally protected right not to be discriminated against and denied service based upon their ethnicity. People also have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. A private individual infringing upon either of those rights is violating the civil rights of the person being discriminated against. Does the nature of the enumerated civil liberty or the number of the amendment it is contained in affect its protected status?

Quote:

It's this mentality in your post that truly makes me anti-gun and pro-gun law.

Second amendment be damned..... I have the right to refuse service to anyone, and I have the right to have my employees work by rules I apply so long as I break no labor laws...... last time I checked having a gun at work was not a labor law or protected under such.

I have many rights guaranteed me by the Constitution.... but they stop whereupon they may infringe upon another's right. My right to not allow guns in my business supercedes any right to ignore it and carry a gun on my property.

Come to my business carrying a gun.... I ask you to leave.... you choose to stay, I call the cops, whose side do you think they will take?

Are you an idiot???? I'm sorry but comparing not wanting someone carrying a gun on my property to racism and prejudiced.... is the stupidest thing I have read on here.

Where did I say that? What you are suggesting with the gun bit is not violating somebody's civil liberties based upon racism, it's violating somebody's civil liberties based upon hoplophobia. Either way, it's a violation of their constitutionally protected civil liberties. The only difference is your motivation. And the argument for not allowing gays, african-americans, and other groups of people on your property is the same as the argument you present here...that it's your private property, and you can discriminate against whomever you choose to. All you should have to do to see this is change "gun" to "gay" or "african-american" in your argument.

If you open your property to the public and then violate part of that public's civil liberties, you will eventually be called upon it. You do have the option of not allowing guns or gays or african-americans on your property, all you have to do is to close it to the public.

connyosis · 09-02-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamsterdancer

People have a constitutionally protected right not to be discriminated against and denied service based upon their ethnicity. People also have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Oh please. If an employer says that you cannot carry a weapon on their property, he is not prohibiting gun owners to work there. He is just saying that they should leave their guns at home.
If an employer says he doesn't allow gays on his property it's a big fucking difference. It's not like they can temporarily leave their gayness at home when going to work now is there?

highthief · 09-02-2005, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

This was addressed, please read more carefully.

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

Snarky fella aren't you?

Just what is a CCW permit?

highthief · 09-02-2005, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

So because a pilot has gone through the training to fly the airplane, he is magically more qualified than a person who has gone through the necessary training to carry a concealed gun? (which in my state includes a test to show that you can actually hit what your shooting at)

Personally, I think anyone carrying a gun on a plane is insane. There are sure fire ways to prevent the sort of thing that happened on 9/11 if the airlines would care to spend the money on doing so.

However, with regard to the pilots, if they were to carry, I think pilots already undergo pretty intensive background checks, many if not most have air force or naval experience and know the mechanics of a plane (in general, where fuel lines and hydrolics are) - starting from "go", they probably are more "trustworthy" to carry a gun within the confines of an aircraft.

FoolThemAll · 09-02-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamsterdancer

If you open your property to the public and then violate part of that public's civil liberties, you will eventually be called upon it.

This is the point of disagreement. I don't believe their civil rights are being violated. They're being invited to step foot on private property, given certain conditions. They only lose this particular liberty if they, the public, deem it a reasonable cost for entrance and agree to give it up. The owners have EVERY right to set these conditions, it's their property.

If one doesn't wish to part with their liberties at the door, then one needs to accept that they won't be permitted to pass the door into someone else's private property. Balance of rights.

Fwiw, I think it's a shortsighted and ineffective way to stop gun violence. And a shortsighted and ineffective way to bar guns in states with CCW permits.

But they have the right to do that shortsighted and ineffective thing.

Lebell · 09-02-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Snarky fella aren't you?

Just what is a CCW permit?

Sorry, didn't intend to be snarky. Your tone prompted the reply.

CCW = Concealed Carry Weapons permit.

Had one myself in Colorado (after training, an FBI background check and a couple of hundred $$ in fees).

Will have again in Oregon after I get a perm job.

Paq · 09-02-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Personally, I think anyone carrying a gun on a plane is insane. There are sure fire ways to prevent the sort of thing that happened on 9/11 if the airlines would care to spend the money on doing so.

However, with regard to the pilots, if they were to carry, I think pilots already undergo pretty intensive background checks, many if not most have air force or naval experience and know the mechanics of a plane (in general, where fuel lines and hydrolics are) - starting from "go", they probably are more "trustworthy" to carry a gun within the confines of an aircraft.

This is exactlywhy i feel a pilot being the only armed person on a plane is MUCH safer than john Q public who shoots at the guy that looked suspicious and hits a fuel line sending the plane down as a fireball from the heavens..

Lebell · 09-02-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

This is exactlywhy i feel a pilot being the only armed person on a plane is MUCH safer than john Q public who shoots at the guy that looked suspicious and hits a fuel line sending the plane down as a fireball from the heavens..

While I appreciate the seriousness of shooting a gun on a plane,

a) John Q CCW holder would be liable for shooting a "guy that looked suspicious" on the street same as he would on an airplane...yet how many CCW holders get arrested for this? Answer...one that I can think of over the last ten years.

b) Your hyperbole imagery is exactly that...hyperbole. You've been watching too many movies. Even with armor piercing ammo, it would be next to impossible to bring down a plane with a pistol. Even a shot through the fusilage wouldn't cause an explosion or even a catastrophic decompression. Make CCW owners carry frangible ammo onboard and you remove even this 1 in a billion possibility.

Christ, people, why are you less afraid of asshats who carry guns illegally than you are of people who jump through all the legal loopholes to do so legally?? Are you equally afraid of chefs charging out of the kitchen at your local Denny's or IHOP and slicing up the guests with an 8 inch chef's knife??

09-02-2005, 11:52 AM

//Christ, people, why are you less afraid of asshats who carry guns illegally than you are of people who jump through all the legal loopholes to do so legally??//

Because nobody needs to carry a gun, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who feels so insecure that they feel they must conduct their daily lives armed to kill. It's...scary.

I'm not afraid of the Denny's guy, because he leaves his knife at work when he goes home and doesn't feel the need to take it to the park, or to the movies, on a plane, or to his part-time job as a car salesman.

Lebell, you come across here as a decent, honest and intelligent person. Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun? I really truthfully don't understand it.

Paq · 09-02-2005, 11:58 AM

^^^
I'm with zen. I didnt' realize I needed a gun in order to walk around in public, but hell, it seems like i may have to just to keep the status quo.

sad sad days

Also, i am not afraid of asshats who illegally carry guns on airplanes..bc they are generally stopped before they get on the airplane...Actually, i don't recall a hijacking of an airplane by an armed assailant.

pan6467 · 09-02-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamsterdancer

People have a constitutionally protected right not to be discriminated against and denied service based upon their ethnicity. People also have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. A private individual infringing upon either of those rights is violating the civil rights of the person being discriminated against. Does the nature of the enumerated civil liberty or the number of the amendment it is contained in affect its protected status?

Where did I say that? What you are suggesting with the gun bit is not violating somebody's civil liberties based upon racism, it's violating somebody's civil liberties based upon hoplophobia. Either way, it's a violation of their constitutionally protected civil liberties. The only difference is your motivation. And the argument for not allowing gays, african-americans, and other groups of people on your property is the same as the argument you present here...that it's your private property, and you can discriminate against whomever you choose to. All you should have to do to see this is change "gun" to "gay" or "african-american" in your argument.

If you open your property to the public and then violate part of that public's civil liberties, you will eventually be called upon it. You do have the option of not allowing guns or gays or african-americans on your property, all you have to do is to close it to the public.

I am not discriminating against anyone. I simply said you carry a gun on my property YOU WILL leave or the police wil escort you. As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service. If you choose to carry a gun on my property and I throw you off.... then sue me and see who wins. 99.99% sure it would be me, and I would make sure you paid my lawyers fees, and countersue for defamation. I'm not being prejudiced against anyone, I am not saying you cannot defend yourself, and I am not saying outside of my property you can't carry a gun.... but my RIGHTS to MY PROPERTY supercede your rights to have a gun on it. You have the choice to do business with me or not.... if you choose to then you leave the gun outside off my property... if you don't I have you escorted off. Plain and simple.... want to carry a gun... stay off my property.

Racism, sexual discrimination, ethnic prejudiced.... is a far, far, different animal. One cannot help what they are.... however, one does have the option to carry a gun.

Why is it illegal to carry a gun within I believe 500 feet of a school or church???????? Is that not this prejudice and stomping on your rights that you talk of?

You never answered my theatre or Pat Robertson scenarios I noticed, instead you keep equating my choice of not wanting a gun on my property to racism, and other prejudice. I find your argument degrading and if you truly believe this.... then I again reiterate.... this is a prime example of why I would never support CCW, and why I would ban weapons from my business and why I would choose to boycott a business I feel guns should not be allowed in.

There are those that are responsible and respectful, just like smokers, and I hate to believe I would punish the innocent because of the ignorant few who believe they rights can impede on mine.

I'm sure when I have gone to Cedar Point or Disney or a crowded bar, there have been guns there..... but noone has ever brought them to my attention and therefore I live by my naivity and believe what I don't know won't hurt me.... but what happens on the Magnum roller coaster when someone's gun goes off by accident and kills my son??????

What happens when a pick pocket lifts your gun and uses it to shoot innocent people?

Perhaps it may never happen, and perhaps you are willing to take that risk and 100% firmly believe that neither of those or any similar scenario would ever happen.

However, all it takes is 1 time. And I can guarantee if I am innocently riding a roller coaster and someone's gun would go off by accident and kill my son.... I would not only own the park but I would make sure the man/woman who had the gun did prison time... and if not I would make sure through connected friends that that person never carried a gun to an amusement park again.

j8ear · 09-02-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

you come across here as a decent, honest and intelligent person. Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun? I really truthfully don't understand it.

I'm certain that Lebel doesn't need ~me~ speaking for him, but this is out of line and inappropriate.

These characteristics ARE NOT IN conflict with each other.

As if your lack of understanding reduces someone's decency, honesty or intelligence.

-bear

cj2112 · 09-02-2005, 01:05 PM

First, explain to me how a gun just goes off by accident. Second, if I enter your business, you will not know I have a gun, unless it's absolutely necessary for me to use it. I spent an entire day at a local fair type event with an off duty police officer, it was not until I got into my car and unholstered my gun to place it onto the seat next to me that he realized I was carrying one. This is somebody who is trained to notice EVERYTHING. If you see my gun in your place of business, I guarantee it's because somebody's life is in immediate danger, and your likely to thank me when I eliminate that threat.
As far as a pickpocket lifting my gun, if I'm carrying concealed, he nor anybody else will even know I have the gun. What happens if the pickpocket brings a gun with him and starts shooting people?

On a side note, Pan, are you aware that your state is a "shall issue" state? Meaning that if I'm not legally barred from receiving a CCW permit that they are legally required to issue it to me.

hamsterdancer · 09-02-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am not discriminating against anyone.

Of course you are. You are saying that certain people are not welcome at your business because they choose to exercise their constitutionally enumerated rights.

Quote:

I simply said you carry a gun on my property YOU WILL leave or the police wil escort you. As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service.

How would the police get there? After all, you're barring people with guns from your property, right? Are you going to require them to disarm before they come in?

Quote:

If you choose to carry a gun on my property and I throw you off.... then sue me and see who wins. 99.99% sure it would be me, and I would make sure you paid my lawyers fees, and countersue for defamation.

Are you in England? Because that's the legal system you're describing...it's called "loser pays", and isn't how the US court system operates. Also, you are precluded from filing a defamation suit for statements in court proceedings.

Quote:

I'm not being prejudiced against anyone, I am not saying you cannot defend yourself, and I am not saying outside of my property you can't carry a gun.... but my RIGHTS to MY PROPERTY supercede your rights to have a gun on it. You have the choice to do business with me or not.... if you choose to then you leave the gun outside off my property... if you don't I have you escorted off. Plain and simple.... want to carry a gun... stay off my property.

Sure you are being prejudiced, against people with CCW permits. You are not discriminating based upon skin color, you're discriminating based upon their exercise of their civil liberties.

Quote:

Why is it illegal to carry a gun within I believe 500 feet of a school or church???????? Is that not this prejudice and stomping on your rights that you talk of?

It's not illegal where I am. I am pretty sure it's not illegal where you are, because it would violate the Constitution in half a dozen different ways. For example, such a law would bar gun owners from living near schools or churches. That alone would make such a law unconstitutional.

Quote:

You never answered my theatre or Pat Robertson scenarios I noticed, instead you keep equating my choice of not wanting a gun on my property to racism, and other prejudice. I find your argument degrading and if you truly believe this.... then I again reiterate.... this is a prime example of why I would never support CCW, and why I would ban weapons from my business and why I would choose to boycott a business I feel guns should not be allowed in.

I didn't say it was racist, I said it was discriminatory and infringed upon a constitutionally enumerated right. There is a difference.

Quote:

but what happens on the Magnum roller coaster when someone's gun goes off by accident and kills my son??????

What happens when a pick pocket lifts your gun and uses it to shoot innocent people?

Perhaps it may never happen, and perhaps you are willing to take that risk and 100% firmly believe that neither of those or any similar scenario would ever happen.

Can you tell us of a single time that a holstered firearm "just went off" without a human being acting upon it? Can you tell us of a single documentable incident where somebody had a gun pickpocketed away from them? Please remember, firearms are very heavy, and most people would notice when somebody takes several pounds of steel out of their holster.

Quote:

However, all it takes is 1 time. And I can guarantee if I am innocently riding a roller coaster and someone's gun would go off by accident and kill my son.... I would not only own the park but I would make sure the man/woman who had the gun did prison time... and if not I would make sure through connected friends that that person never carried a gun to an amusement park again.

You have a strange idea about how the justice system works. And your "we must strip people of their civil liberties if it just saves one child's life" bit has grown pretty threadbare.

StanT · 09-02-2005, 04:49 PM

I'm indifferent as hell to gun ownership. I don't want one in my house and couldn't care less how many you have in yours.

At the time the second ammendment was written, only white male landowners were considered citizens and most were part of the local militia. "Arms" at the time consisted of muskets. Some of the NRA interpretations of the 2nd ammendment truely amaze me, they are more creative than the fundamentalist interpretations of the bible.

Quote:

Amendment II
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.

In the context of the times, I see a right for a citizen to have a musket at home in case the militia gets called up.

How exactly do you read this sentence and see a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon into your place of employment against your employer's consent? Could the same logic be used to create a constitutional right to Stinger missiles or thermonuclear devices?

Lebell · 09-02-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

Lebell, you come across here as a decent, honest and intelligent person. Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun? I really truthfully don't understand it.

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.

Marvelous Marv · 09-02-2005, 10:11 PM

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:

Quote:

NOW --- LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL

I mentioned this above .. but let's bring it up again. Gun control. For decades the left has been eager to disarm the American people. Democrats and liberals have been dedicated to the idea that only government should have guns, that the people should totally and completely put their right of self defense to government. How would you like to have been one of the people in New Orleans who sat out the storm in their house, only to now find to now find predatory looters trying to come through the front door ... and no police help available. One shot through the door to take out that first looter and the rest would run. They're looking for safe targets, not homeowners with guns. And what about the hospitals? I'm almost dead certain that the rules in these hospitals forbade any employees from having guns on the premises. Now we hear about doctors and nurses moving patients to higher floors of hospitals while looters make their way upstairs. Do they wish they had guns now? How about that children's hospital that was under siege a few nights ago?

Now you know. In times of disaster and civil unrest the government isn't - can't be there to help you. You will, at least for some period of time, be on your own. You have a responsibility to your children, to your family members, to protect them. Are you up to it? Do you have a gun?

What about this program I told you about a few weeks ago .. a program whereby you were supposed to ask the parents of your children's playmates whether or not they had a gun in the home. Presumably you were supposed to tell your children they couldn't visit a home where there was a gun in the house. How special. OK ... so let's say that your child is visiting one of these wonderful gunless homes .. and some disaster strikes. Maybe it's an earthquake, or our Islamic friends. You can't get to your children, and you know that there are predators and looters in the streets. Your children. Are they safe? Are you proud that you made sure that the adults in that home would have no way to protect themselves --- and your children --- until the cops got there.

The gun control loons out there have all sorts of ideas as to how to get the guns away from law-abiding citizens. Have them explain to you just how they are going to make sure that the predators don't have guns when disaster strikes.

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.

cj2112 · 09-03-2005, 05:17 AM

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.

pan6467 · 09-03-2005, 05:37 AM

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.

Quote:

Concealed carry of a handgun by a licensee is prohibited in certain areas. Under state law, all persons or governing bodies who direct the activities of each entity listed below, must post at each entrance, a sign which reads, "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person`s control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordinance onto these premises."

Court house or court rooms.

Inside a public school.

Police, sheriff or state highway patrol station.

Correctional facility, jail or any premises controlled by Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.

Airport passenger terminal or any airplane.

Any room or open-air arena licensed to serve alcohol for on premises consumption. (in other words a bar......)

Premises owned or leased by a public or private college, university or other institution of higher learning.

Any place of worship.

A child day-care center.

A family day-care home.

Any building owned or leased by a state government entity or a political subdivision of the state.

Any location prohibited by federal law.

The owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by a public entity, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on that property.
A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of criminal trespass.

It is unlawful to have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that it is accessible without leaving the vehicle. It is unlawful to have a firearm in a motor vehicle unless it is unloaded and carried in one of the following ways:

In a closed case, box, or package.
Secured in a rack in plain sight.
In plain sight, with the action open or the weapon stripped, or if the firearm`s action will not stay open or it cannot be easily stripped, in plain sight.
In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle.
There are exceptions for law enforcement authorities and very limited specific exceptions for landowners engaged in pest control under the exact circumstances described in the statute.

A person who has been issued a license or a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun may transport a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle if either it is in a holster and in plain sight on the person`s person, or it is securely encased in closed, locked glove compartment or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked.

A firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle is considered loaded if its magazine is loaded or a loaded magazine is ready at hand. Muzzleloading weapons are considered unloaded if the percussion cap or priming powder in the pan is removed.

It is unlawful to possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed pursuant to a liquor license. This prohibition does not apply to a police officer, or to any room used for the accommodation of guests of a hotel, or the possession of an unloaded rifle by a veterans` organization, or possessing or displaying unloaded firearms in a soldiers` memorial or in a convention center or other public meeting place by an exhibitor, trader, purchaser, or seller.

09-03-2005, 07:43 PM

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.

j8ear · 09-03-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

Where is this militia in New Orleans?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

But I'd much prefer to be there in a situation where noone had firearms at all.

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...

Telluride · 09-03-2005, 11:08 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

09-04-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbear

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Here's the quote:

Quote:

"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."

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?

cj2112 · 09-04-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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

Mr Honest · 09-06-2005, 12:04 PM

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

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

cj2112 · 09-06-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Honest

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

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.

pan6467 · 09-06-2005, 05:27 PM

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.

Mr Honest · 09-08-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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.

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

Lebell · 09-08-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Honest

...my automatic assault gun...

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.

SirLance · 09-08-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

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

This is not germane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

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

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.

Mr Honest · 09-09-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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.

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.

Lebell · 09-09-2005, 11:35 AM

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.

splck · 09-09-2005, 02:36 PM

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.

Seer666 · 09-10-2005, 12:33 AM

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.

09-01-2005, 06:04 PM	#84 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	And on another note, if employees or guests are allowed to carry guns into amusement parks, theatres, anywhere I go and choose to feel secure.... i won't shop there. The owner has his rights, I have mine to boycott. __________________ 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?"

09-02-2005, 11:58 AM	#95 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	^^^ I'm with zen. I didnt' realize I needed a gun in order to walk around in public, but hell, it seems like i may have to just to keep the status quo. sad sad days Also, i am not afraid of asshats who illegally carry guns on airplanes..bc they are generally stopped before they get on the airplane...Actually, i don't recall a hijacking of an airplane by an armed assailant. __________________ Live. Chris Last edited by Paq; 09-02-2005 at 12:54 PM..

09-06-2005, 12:04 PM	#110 (permalink)
Mr Honest Crazy	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 If the aim is to have a murder rate like the US then hell yeah give every worker an AK-47 __________________ Human beings : who could ever claim to like them all?

09-06-2005, 05:27 PM	#112 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ 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?"

09-09-2005, 11:35 AM	#117 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "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!

09-02-2005, 11:52 AM	#94 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	//Christ, people, why are you less afraid of asshats who carry guns illegally than you are of people who jump through all the legal loopholes to do so legally??// Because nobody needs to carry a gun, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who feels so insecure that they feel they must conduct their daily lives armed to kill. It's...scary. I'm not afraid of the Denny's guy, because he leaves his knife at work when he goes home and doesn't feel the need to take it to the park, or to the movies, on a plane, or to his part-time job as a car salesman. Lebell, you come across here as a decent, honest and intelligent person. Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun? I really truthfully don't understand it.

09-02-2005, 01:05 PM	#98 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	First, explain to me how a gun just goes off by accident. Second, if I enter your business, you will not know I have a gun, unless it's absolutely necessary for me to use it. I spent an entire day at a local fair type event with an off duty police officer, it was not until I got into my car and unholstered my gun to place it onto the seat next to me that he realized I was carrying one. This is somebody who is trained to notice EVERYTHING. If you see my gun in your place of business, I guarantee it's because somebody's life is in immediate danger, and your likely to thank me when I eliminate that threat. As far as a pickpocket lifting my gun, if I'm carrying concealed, he nor anybody else will even know I have the gun. What happens if the pickpocket brings a gun with him and starts shooting people? On a side note, Pan, are you aware that your state is a "shall issue" state? Meaning that if I'm not legally barred from receiving a CCW permit that they are legally required to issue it to me.

09-03-2005, 05:17 AM	#103 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	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.

09-03-2005, 07:43 PM	#105 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	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.

09-09-2005, 02:36 PM	#118 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	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. __________________ nice line eh?

09-10-2005, 12:33 AM	#119 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	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. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.