Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work
-
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Lets see 1st mistake arguing witha group of peoplee... gun. Yeah of course, it's not guns that kill people. It people that ask to get themselves shot. Steve T
It's people making stupid decisions in life that put themselves in danger. I go and get into an argument with a group of people so I am now part to blame for the result of said actions. I then ask someone to bring a gun to "solve" said argumnent. I then get shot. Lets see I should feel sorry for the person who made these stupid choices? She instigated the argument or at least escalated the situation in either case she is culpable for the outcome. Asked an idiot to bring a gun. The idiot brought the gun and started shooting. How would we feel if she got into the argument, called people and then got beat up or stabbed? I have no problem with carrying a gun but if you do you must be 100% in the clear. You can have no part in the argument or escalation of it. You have to be defensive. You have to try all means of escape.
-
It's people making stupid decisions in life that put themselves in danger. I go and get into an argument with a group of people so I am now part to blame for the result of said actions. I then ask someone to bring a gun to "solve" said argumnent. I then get shot. Lets see I should feel sorry for the person who made these stupid choices? She instigated the argument or at least escalated the situation in either case she is culpable for the outcome. Asked an idiot to bring a gun. The idiot brought the gun and started shooting. How would we feel if she got into the argument, called people and then got beat up or stabbed? I have no problem with carrying a gun but if you do you must be 100% in the clear. You can have no part in the argument or escalation of it. You have to be defensive. You have to try all means of escape.
Sure, if everyone who owned a gun legally used it responsibly and kept it completely safe, and if it was as difficult for criminals to obtain guns in a gun-ridden society like the USA as it is in a gun-free society then, yes, there would be no real agrument against gun ownership. But that is not the case and never will be. As for it being a constitutional right: The 2nd ammendment is obsolete. Unfortunately it is still in force and is so vaguely worded that gun lobbyists have been able impose in large part their very loose interpretation onto the legislation that has flowed from that ammendment. Even if it weren't obsolete I'd like to know at what point "A well regulated militia" got translated into "Every Tom, Dick and Harry with no criminal record". If you want to go with the loosest possible interpretation of the 2nd ammendment then every person could own any weapon he could carry (if we allow that you can't "bear" a tank, etc) This may have seemed quite reasonable at a time when the country had just wrested freedom from a foreign tyrant, the entire able bodied, male population had been in, or been expected to be available for duty in, "A well regulated militia" and the most powerful "bearable" weapon imaginable was a musket. It is so patenty ridiculous to extend that right to a population of 200 million people in a county over 200 years free of tyrany (unless you count GW as a tyrant ;) ) and in possesion of modern weaponry unimaginable to the framers. If the price of a "gun-free" society is for gun sportsmen to have to jump through a few extra hoops to get their gun, and to follow some stricter rules in its use then I am willing to pay that price (I owned guns in the UK where that was the case) Until 2nd ammendment is repealled I will support the lawmakers who choose to interpret it in the most restrictive way possble. You are apparently so enamoured of easy gun-ownership that you seem completely blind to the overwhelming advantages of having a gun free society. Steve T
-
Sure, if everyone who owned a gun legally used it responsibly and kept it completely safe, and if it was as difficult for criminals to obtain guns in a gun-ridden society like the USA as it is in a gun-free society then, yes, there would be no real agrument against gun ownership. But that is not the case and never will be. As for it being a constitutional right: The 2nd ammendment is obsolete. Unfortunately it is still in force and is so vaguely worded that gun lobbyists have been able impose in large part their very loose interpretation onto the legislation that has flowed from that ammendment. Even if it weren't obsolete I'd like to know at what point "A well regulated militia" got translated into "Every Tom, Dick and Harry with no criminal record". If you want to go with the loosest possible interpretation of the 2nd ammendment then every person could own any weapon he could carry (if we allow that you can't "bear" a tank, etc) This may have seemed quite reasonable at a time when the country had just wrested freedom from a foreign tyrant, the entire able bodied, male population had been in, or been expected to be available for duty in, "A well regulated militia" and the most powerful "bearable" weapon imaginable was a musket. It is so patenty ridiculous to extend that right to a population of 200 million people in a county over 200 years free of tyrany (unless you count GW as a tyrant ;) ) and in possesion of modern weaponry unimaginable to the framers. If the price of a "gun-free" society is for gun sportsmen to have to jump through a few extra hoops to get their gun, and to follow some stricter rules in its use then I am willing to pay that price (I owned guns in the UK where that was the case) Until 2nd ammendment is repealled I will support the lawmakers who choose to interpret it in the most restrictive way possble. You are apparently so enamoured of easy gun-ownership that you seem completely blind to the overwhelming advantages of having a gun free society. Steve T
Right advantage... Sitting in my house with out a means to protect it so baseball bat wielding criminals have their will. I guess at that time we should ban bats & steak knivees too. Hecck try and defend yourself in the UK and you will be charged. You are powerless and the criminals are empowered. Dont forget you have that boxcutter on you at work! Oh the horror if the cops find it! Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Is the fact that sportmen are a dying breed in the UK? It iss impossible to provide your own food through hunting these days? At the same time crime increases? Hhow long does 911 take to arrive if at all? Are they not nothing more the report takers? now the founding fathers stated in the federalist papers that the militia is the people. Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. One would also think that since the creation of the welfare state we have been living in a time of tyrany. We are taxed to the extreme to give our wealth to others.
-
Right advantage... Sitting in my house with out a means to protect it so baseball bat wielding criminals have their will. I guess at that time we should ban bats & steak knivees too. Hecck try and defend yourself in the UK and you will be charged. You are powerless and the criminals are empowered. Dont forget you have that boxcutter on you at work! Oh the horror if the cops find it! Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Is the fact that sportmen are a dying breed in the UK? It iss impossible to provide your own food through hunting these days? At the same time crime increases? Hhow long does 911 take to arrive if at all? Are they not nothing more the report takers? now the founding fathers stated in the federalist papers that the militia is the people. Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. One would also think that since the creation of the welfare state we have been living in a time of tyrany. We are taxed to the extreme to give our wealth to others.
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: now the founding fathers stated in the federalist papers that the militia is the people. Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. See ...you went from "A well regulated militia." to "Every Tom, Dick and Harry with no criminal record." without even trying. I think this country has more to fear from the gun nuts who believe themselves to be "a well regulated militia" than they have from good old fashioned criminals. Steve T -- modified at 20:47 Tuesday 4th October, 2005
-
Right advantage... Sitting in my house with out a means to protect it so baseball bat wielding criminals have their will. I guess at that time we should ban bats & steak knivees too. Hecck try and defend yourself in the UK and you will be charged. You are powerless and the criminals are empowered. Dont forget you have that boxcutter on you at work! Oh the horror if the cops find it! Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Is the fact that sportmen are a dying breed in the UK? It iss impossible to provide your own food through hunting these days? At the same time crime increases? Hhow long does 911 take to arrive if at all? Are they not nothing more the report takers? now the founding fathers stated in the federalist papers that the militia is the people. Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. One would also think that since the creation of the welfare state we have been living in a time of tyrany. We are taxed to the extreme to give our wealth to others.
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Did you forget (or omit to read) my other reply: (repeated here for your convenience) I wrote: You keep pushing the point that banning guns outright only hurts law abiding citizens. What you fail to realize (or just fail to mention because it doesn't fit your gun-obsessed philosophy) is that in countries like the UK where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. In countries where guns are illegal there aren't dozens of gun shops in every city, they don't sell ammunition in supermartkets, there aren't hundreds of households containing legal guns ripe for the picking of criminals (many guns used in USA crime are stolen from legal gun owners) and in particular they don't have "flea market" type gun shows at which gun licensing background checks can be circumvented by ridiculous loopholes in the licensing law. Steve T
-
Right advantage... Sitting in my house with out a means to protect it so baseball bat wielding criminals have their will. I guess at that time we should ban bats & steak knivees too. Hecck try and defend yourself in the UK and you will be charged. You are powerless and the criminals are empowered. Dont forget you have that boxcutter on you at work! Oh the horror if the cops find it! Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Is the fact that sportmen are a dying breed in the UK? It iss impossible to provide your own food through hunting these days? At the same time crime increases? Hhow long does 911 take to arrive if at all? Are they not nothing more the report takers? now the founding fathers stated in the federalist papers that the militia is the people. Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. One would also think that since the creation of the welfare state we have been living in a time of tyrany. We are taxed to the extreme to give our wealth to others.
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. No it doesn't "Regulated" means subject to regulation. "Well" implies 'good', 'strong' and 'effective' regulation. "Proper Working Order" has nothing to do with regulation. Steve T
-
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Well Regulated refers to something being in proper working order. Here firing a few 48 cal balls into a target at a specific distance. No it doesn't "Regulated" means subject to regulation. "Well" implies 'good', 'strong' and 'effective' regulation. "Proper Working Order" has nothing to do with regulation. Steve T
WRONG you are applying current context over historical use in the 1700 and 1800's. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[^] The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
-
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Of course it iss easy to make the elaw abiding jump through hoops while the lawless continue on theeir easy ways. oppss did you forget that or just omit the fact that these laws & hoops always only hurt those that follow them? Did you forget (or omit to read) my other reply: (repeated here for your convenience) I wrote: You keep pushing the point that banning guns outright only hurts law abiding citizens. What you fail to realize (or just fail to mention because it doesn't fit your gun-obsessed philosophy) is that in countries like the UK where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. In countries where guns are illegal there aren't dozens of gun shops in every city, they don't sell ammunition in supermartkets, there aren't hundreds of households containing legal guns ripe for the picking of criminals (many guns used in USA crime are stolen from legal gun owners) and in particular they don't have "flea market" type gun shows at which gun licensing background checks can be circumvented by ridiculous loopholes in the licensing law. Steve T
FlyingTinman wrote: and in particular they don't have "flea market" type gun shows at which gun licensing background checks can be circumvented by ridiculous loopholes in the licensing law. Still have to go through the NICS check. Gun shows in my state only allow FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED dealers to setup tables. They still require a NICS check for each gun sold. How about reading the actual laws and not the hype the gun banners push? I as a private individual wish to sell you a private individual a handgun. You must have either a CCW or a permit to purchase. The permit to purchase is obtained from your local Police Dept. They will run a NICS check on you before giving the permit. The permit is only valid for 10 days. Guess what you still need the permit to purchase from a dealer as well! So where is the loophole? FlyingTinman wrote: where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. That really works for DC dosen't it? Can't own one there but crime is the highest in the country. Again gun crime is climbing in the UK but they also have had a rise in home invasions as the criminals do not have to worry about you defending your home. Lets see Prohibition really worked... The drug gangs will just smuggle guns in with their drugs and a wonderful black market will give them lots more cash. Criminals will always find a way. FlyingTinman wrote: there aren't hundreds of households containing legal guns ripe for the picking of criminals (many guns used in USA crime are stolen from legal gun owners) Try and get into my safes :) This is also why I have pushed education on safe storage including quick open lock boxes for your defensive gun. I have pushed the local officials and media to promote this.
-
FlyingTinman wrote: and in particular they don't have "flea market" type gun shows at which gun licensing background checks can be circumvented by ridiculous loopholes in the licensing law. Still have to go through the NICS check. Gun shows in my state only allow FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED dealers to setup tables. They still require a NICS check for each gun sold. How about reading the actual laws and not the hype the gun banners push? I as a private individual wish to sell you a private individual a handgun. You must have either a CCW or a permit to purchase. The permit to purchase is obtained from your local Police Dept. They will run a NICS check on you before giving the permit. The permit is only valid for 10 days. Guess what you still need the permit to purchase from a dealer as well! So where is the loophole? FlyingTinman wrote: where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. That really works for DC dosen't it? Can't own one there but crime is the highest in the country. Again gun crime is climbing in the UK but they also have had a rise in home invasions as the criminals do not have to worry about you defending your home. Lets see Prohibition really worked... The drug gangs will just smuggle guns in with their drugs and a wonderful black market will give them lots more cash. Criminals will always find a way. FlyingTinman wrote: there aren't hundreds of households containing legal guns ripe for the picking of criminals (many guns used in USA crime are stolen from legal gun owners) Try and get into my safes :) This is also why I have pushed education on safe storage including quick open lock boxes for your defensive gun. I have pushed the local officials and media to promote this.
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Try and get into my safes I suspect you are the execption. I know about 8 gun owners and only two of them even have gun-safes. L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: FlyingTinman wrote: where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. That really works for DC dosen't it? Can't own one there but crime is the highest in the country. Again gun crime is climbing in the UK but they also have had a rise in home invasions as the criminals do not have to worry about you defending your home. Lets see Prohibition really worked... The drug gangs will just smuggle guns in with their drugs and a wonderful black market will give them lots more cash. Criminals will always find a way. That argument doesn't fly in my book. It is much, much, harder to smuggle guns (or anything for that matter) through international borders than trough State borders. I really don't understand the "We can't stop all criminals getting guns so lets not even bother making it harder for them." attitude. Steve T
-
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: Try and get into my safes I suspect you are the execption. I know about 8 gun owners and only two of them even have gun-safes. L_u_r_k_e_r wrote: FlyingTinman wrote: where guns are illegal it is MUCH harder for everyone--even the criminals--to get hold of guns and ammunition in the first place. That really works for DC dosen't it? Can't own one there but crime is the highest in the country. Again gun crime is climbing in the UK but they also have had a rise in home invasions as the criminals do not have to worry about you defending your home. Lets see Prohibition really worked... The drug gangs will just smuggle guns in with their drugs and a wonderful black market will give them lots more cash. Criminals will always find a way. That argument doesn't fly in my book. It is much, much, harder to smuggle guns (or anything for that matter) through international borders than trough State borders. I really don't understand the "We can't stop all criminals getting guns so lets not even bother making it harder for them." attitude. Steve T
How do we make it harder on them? Passing laws does not make it harder. That only makes it harder on the rest of us. International smuggling is hard? Better look again. Most of the club drugs come through canada. Look at www.dea.gov. I live just across a river from Canada and lots of smuggling occurs. There are so many channels that the coasties can't cover it. I ran a firearms rights group and almost all the gun owners I know have safes. Most more then one