PDA

View Full Version : Another poke in the eye to DC...


EastBayRidge
09-25-2007, 9:06 PM
delivered by Dave Kopel over at Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_23-2007_09_29.shtml#1190750734).

Essentially, in 1987 DC's city council created a (non-effective) constitution for itself in anticipation of becoming the state of "New Columbia" - and lo and behold, unlike a prior constitution from 1982, this one contains, word for word, recitation of the 2nd Amendment.

"It is sometimes claimed (such as by DC lawyers in the instant litigation) that the Second Amendment phrasing is merely a protection of state militias from federal interference. The DC Constitution demonstrates the absurdity of the argument; nothing in the DC Constitution could overcome the Supremacy Clause and prevent federal control (pursuant to the U.S. Constitution) of the DC state militia. The only plausible explanation for the placement of the right to keep and bear arms language in the "Bill of Rights" section of the DC Constitution is that section 102 of the DC Constitution has precisely the same effect as every other section of the DC Constitution's Bill of Rights: to shield the individual rights of ordinary DC citizens from potential abuse by the New Columbia state government.

Accordingly, when DC lawyers argue to lower federal courts, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, that the language of the U.S. Second Amendment is not an ordinary individual right, they are making an argument which is decisively contradicted by the very constitution adopted by the government whom the lawyers are representing."

:D

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 9:14 PM
I loved that. Its another piece of evidence in the "Army of Davids" theory. DC is up against an army of lawyers loosely organized on the internet and bound and determined to reclaim the Second Amendment.

No expensive law firm can save something from that sort of attack.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 9:33 PM
I loved that. Its another piece of evidence in the "Army of Davids" theory. DC is up against an army of lawyers loosely organized on the internet and bound and determined to reclaim the Second Amendment.

No expensive law firm can save something from that sort of attack.

-Gene

Ah yes.. but you forget the power of the liberal press spreading the disease of ignorance and paranoia..... very powerful indeed.

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 9:43 PM
But that liberal press is losing readership and profitability every day...

I just love this chart of the New York Time's stock performance:
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/3m/n/nyt

-Gene

metalhead357
09-25-2007, 9:58 PM
Ah yes.. but you forget the power of the liberal press spreading the disease of ignorance and paranoia..... very powerful indeed.

But NOT when the truth is already known; Not when the truths that the premier Anti-gun/cant own a gun city of record has one of the highest murder rates and other high crime rates in America......

SOME americans are sheep...but even sheep can smell fecal matter when it drifts thier way coming from lib presses.............

TOOOOOOOOOOOO many "The sky is falling" antics through the 90's for many/most to fall for that same-ol' same-ol' from the media shaaaaat shovelers.

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 11:07 PM
But NOT when the truth is already known; Not when the truths that the premier Anti-gun/cant own a gun city of record has one of the highest murder rates and other high crime rates in America......

SOME americans are sheep...but even sheep can smell fecal matter when it drifts thier way coming from lib presses.............

TOOOOOOOOOOOO many "The sky is falling" antics through the 90's for many/most to fall for that same-ol' same-ol' from the media shaaaaat shovelers.

I live in a VERY conservative area... probably the MOST in the entire state: Kern County.

In this county, 75% of the homes have guns in them... a man I trust with my life... a man that is closer to me than my own father; the man I go hunting with on a monthly basis; a man that is a staunch supporter of the second amendment, made a statement the other day:

"I am all for the second amendment and everything, but I am glad that they banned the AK-47; there is no reason that a law-abiding citizen would ever need an AK-47"

This spawned a heated debate over a two day period and it came down to two issues:

The media has convinced everyone that the AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun capable of indiscriminate mass murder on an epic scale

The media has convinced everyone that the second amendment is about what is "needed", not what is "guaranteed".


As we all know:

The AK-47 in its US version is not fully automatic; the only difference between an AK-47 and daddy's .3006 is caliber and stock option. Functionally they are the same. When one opens the door with banning the AK, the .3006 soon follows.

It’s not about what the average American NEEDS; we are guaranteed the right whether we choose to use it or not.


When we start having people in our own cause saying things like this one cannot discount what a negative effect the media is having on the opinions of Americans.

CCWFacts
09-25-2007, 11:29 PM
The AK-47 in its US version is not fully automatic; the only difference between an AK-47 and daddy's .3006 is caliber and stock option. Functionally they are the same. When one opens the door with banning the AK, the .3006 soon follows.

Anyway, what's the big deal about FA vs SA? FA is no more deadly or dangerous than SA. In fact in inexperienced hands, FA is less dangerous because bullets 2 and beyond will be flying over the target's head. And in experienced hands, the semi-auto gun can get 3 or maybe 4 shots per second as opposed to 10, but those are three or four aimed shots as opposed to one sort of aimed shot and 9 wild shots.

It's not like FA guns are imbued with magical powers, or are deadly squared, or anything like that. FA is just another option that has some tactical use. Kinda like attaching a light to the gun. Helps in some situations, has some tactical use, but doesn't fundamentally change anything.

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 4:38 AM
EPU~

Sounds like our hunting buds need to meet each other:cool: Twuz about the exact same sentence outta my friends mouth but substitute the generic "assualt weapon" instead. This was circa 1999......

thank God it did happen when we were out hunting for a week; gave me a LOT of time to talk some sense back into the guy:D Before we were done hunting he was asking questions about AR's....now he is the proud owner of a Bushy that had just made it in under the AW registration deadline-- now he cant seem to thank me enough and his only gripe is why I hadn't talked some sense back into him sooner............

sunborder
09-26-2007, 9:40 AM
OK guys, let's be careful with our terminology. The media, for the most part, isn't "liberal". It's anti-gun. Not the same thing at all. The media takes on the worst traits of BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and few of the good parts. They want to make money, and they are generally run by wealthy urbanites. They will do whatever they can to make people afraid, because fear sells newspapers/advertising. Making us out to be dangerous wackos with EBRs sells newspapers. End of story. Why is it important to make this distinction? Because by tking turns calling the media "liberal" or "in the pocket of the right-wing fascists", we are at the same time inflating the power and evil of the media in our minds, while simultaneously dismissing them. If we really want to use the media to our advantage, or better yet, swing them to our side (pro RKBA), we need to rememberthat they have their OWN agenda (making money by sensationalizing everything), and treat them accordingly.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 9:58 AM
OK guys, let's be careful with our terminology. The media, for the most part, isn't "liberal". It's anti-gun. Not the same thing at all. The media takes on the worst traits of BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and few of the good parts. They want to make money, and they are generally run by wealthy urbanites. They will do whatever they can to make people afraid, because fear sells newspapers/advertising. Making us out to be dangerous wackos with EBRs sells newspapers. End of story. Why is it important to make this distinction? Because by tking turns calling the media "liberal" or "in the pocket of the right-wing fascists", we are at the same time inflating the power and evil of the media in our minds, while simultaneously dismissing them. If we really want to use the media to our advantage, or better yet, swing them to our side (pro RKBA), we need to rememberthat they have their OWN agenda (making money by sensationalizing everything), and treat them accordingly.


You are misunderstanding me. In no way am I saying that all media is liberal. What I am saying is that we can blame the media that IS liberal... like CNN.

I watch Fox News! No anti-gun there.

kermit315
09-26-2007, 10:30 AM
You are misunderstanding me. In no way am I saying that all media is liberal. What I am saying is that we can blame the media that IS liberal... like CNN.

I watch Fox News! No anti-gun there.


hope your kidding about the no anti on fox. I was watching that show that does the panel at like 10 in the morning the other day. They were talking about that teacher in Oregon (i think) that wants a CCW because of threats from her Ex Husband and is suing the school to let her carry there. Every person on that panel plus the host were dead set against it. I almost came unglued and was yelling at the TV when they gave their expert arguments that "He hasnt made a threat in over 2 years, she is fine now" and "nobody should have weapons around my children".

The only sane one in the bunch was the lawyer for the teacher.

That being said, I do watch fox also, and generally like it better than CNN, but there is still plenty of anti to go around.

Jamie

Alan Block
09-26-2007, 10:36 AM
The difference is that someone shooting FA during a crime or defending against one is probably not paying attention to what is behind the target.

bulgron
09-26-2007, 10:41 AM
The difference is that someone shooting FA during a crime or defending against one is probably not paying attention to what is behind the target.

Shouldn't that be:

The difference is that someone shooting during a crime or defending against a criminal who is shooting during a crime is probably not paying attention to what is behind the target.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 10:42 AM
hope your kidding about the no anti on fox. I was watching that show that does the panel at like 10 in the morning the other day. They were talking about that teacher in Oregon (i think) that wants a CCW because of threats from her Ex Husband and is suing the school to let her carry there. Every person on that panel plus the host were dead set against it. I almost came unglued and was yelling at the TV when they gave their expert arguments that "He hasnt made a threat in over 2 years, she is fine now" and "nobody should have weapons around my children".

The only sane one in the bunch was the lawyer for the teacher.

That being said, I do watch fox also, and generally like it better than CNN, but there is still plenty of anti to go around.

Jamie

I'm sorry but I have to agree with the panel. A teacher should not have a dangerous weapon near children; that is not the job of a teacher, that is the job of campus police and or security.

If she wants to carry on her break, or on lunch, or in her car, thats fine but not when she is on the clock teaching children.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 10:44 AM
Shouldn't that be:

No, he had it right.

"The difference is that someone shooting FA during a crime, or defending against one (a crime) is probably not paying attention to what is behind the target."

Not the best diction, but the meaning was clear for me.

dustoff31
09-26-2007, 10:47 AM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with the panel. A teacher should not have a dangerous weapon near children; that is not the job of a teacher, that is the job of campus police and or security.

Just curious, do you apply this to anyone near children, or just to teachers?

CCWFacts
09-26-2007, 10:57 AM
The difference is that someone shooting FA during a crime or defending against one is probably not paying attention to what is behind the target.

Doesn't matter. A criminal in a spray-and-pray shooting is likely to empty the mag, whether it's on FA or SA. A stray round is a stray round.

There's no reason to think that if, say, FA AK-47s were as available as their semi-auto versions, that we would suddenly have more murders or assaults or whatever. I've used both types of weapons in training (not combat) and the FA only had a small advantage (maybe) in some close-in situations.

SAWs and larger guns are probably a different type of thing. They allow controlled, continuous fire. They are dangerous and should be more highly regulated than ordinary rifles.

But for ordinary rifle sized things I don't think there should be a regulatory distinction between FA and SA. There's no danger / safety difference.

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 11:01 AM
Doesn't matter. A criminal in a spray-and-pray shooting is likely to empty the mag, whether it's on FA or SA. A stray round is a stray round.

There's no reason to think that if, say, FA AK-47s were as available as their semi-auto versions, that we would suddenly have more murders or assaults or whatever. I've used both types of weapons in training (not combat) and the FA only had a small advantage (maybe) in some close-in situations.

... there should be a regulatory distinction between FA and SA. There's no danger / safety difference.

+1

I think the North Hollywood BofA robbers would have been more effective with SA. Their FA shooting resulted in no deaths even with hundreds of rounds fired.

slick_711
09-26-2007, 11:06 AM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with the panel. A teacher should not have a dangerous weapon near children; that is not the job of a teacher, that is the job of campus police and or security.

I don't know that I agree there. Campus security is most often a joke, I don't think I'd want them armed. And if the teacher goes through the proper training, and is responsible in continuing that training, why should it be an issue if he/she is 'packing.' The students would never even know. And I hate to bring it up and use such a tragedy to make my argument, but had one of the professors at Virginia Tech been CCWing, don't you think the casualties would have been fewer?

I assure you had such an event happened at my school while I was around I'd have put a stop to it, gun or no; so let us not pretend for a second that an armed and trained professor couldn't have stopped it. Now, I know Universities vs. grade school is a big difference, but in a case like this where the teacher has documented threats to her safety...

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 11:17 AM
I don't know that I agree there. Campus security is most often a joke, I don't think I'd want them armed. And if the teacher goes through the proper training, and is responsible in continuing that training, why should it be an issue if he/she is 'packing.' The students would never even know. And I hate to bring it up and use such a tragedy to make my argument, but had one of the professors at Virginia Tech been CCWing, don't you think the casualties would have been fewer?

I assure you had such an event happened at my school while I was around I'd have put a stop to it, gun or no; so let us not pretend for a second that an armed and trained professor couldn't have stopped it. Now, I know Universities vs. grade school is a big difference, but in a case like this where the teacher has documented threats to her safety...

You will find no bigger proponent of the second amendment and ccw than I am; that being said I also see that when kids are involved the normal rules go out the window. There was a teacher here in Kern County that lost it one day and ended up getting shot by local police. By making it LAW to allow teachers to carry, a school that has suspision about a teacher but cannot prove anything would be powerless to stop that teacher from carrying a gun, or knife to school. Watching 30 kids is destracting enough, I don't want someone with a gun being destracted. I realize that most campus police are a joke. Hire former police officers, do like what the local high school district does: start its own police agency. These things cost money, I realize that. The job of the teacher is to educate. If you want to arm school staff, arm the principal, office staff, campus police, janitors, bus drivers, et cetera but not the teachers. Their focus should be education.

Otherguy Overby
09-26-2007, 12:46 PM
You will find no bigger proponent of the second amendment and ccw than I am

You must be kidding.

You want your children in a self defense free "gun free" zone. Why don't you move them to DC? Their "gun free" zones are the best in the country.

I think the Israeli plan is much better.

simonov
09-26-2007, 12:52 PM
The media has convinced everyone that the second amendment is about what is "needed", not what is "guaranteed".

As we all know:

The AK-47 in its US version is not fully automatic; the only difference between an AK-47 and daddy's .3006 is caliber and stock option. Functionally they are the same. When one opens the door with banning the AK, the .3006 soon follows.

Doesn't matter. People get too defensive about how the AK is semi-auto in this country. In fact, the 2nd Amendment affirms (doesn't grant) the right of the people to keep and bear fully automatic arms, and drawing arbitrary distinctions based on this or that mechanical feature of a firearm is the confiscatory camel's nose in the tent of gun rights.

I know modern suburban Americans are frightened of full auto weapons. Too bad, the Bill of Rights affirms our right to keep and bear them, if the militia clause has any meaning at all.

Arguing with your friend that AKs are semi-auto in this country and that makes them okay concedes to him and his kind that the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a deterrent to tyranny is in fact subject to gross and arbitrary restrictions. I disagree and I think most will agree with me.

Americans could buy full auto arms from their neighborhood hardware store until 1934. Obviously it wasn't a problem.

CSDGuy
09-26-2007, 12:59 PM
EPU: Nice attempt at an arguement... however, there are teachers in Israel's schools who are around children of all ages and demeanors and they're armed. In fact, once the Israeli teachers were armed, terrorist attacks against Israel's schools stopped cold. Also, one reason why terrorists changed over to suicide/homicide bombers instead of using suicide/homicide gunmen is a significant portion of the populace is armed. The gunmen rarely survived long enough to shoot more than a couple of people. Using bombs is much more efficient. Many times, the first inkling something is wrong is the explosion. By then, the damage and most of the deaths/injuries have been done.

I'd rather that my child be taught by a teacher who can defend his or her classroom than one that gets to watch his or her students die and be unable to do anything about it. A teacher who goes nuts and wants to kill will do that regardless of whether or not school rules or state laws allow it.

CCWFacts
09-26-2007, 1:24 PM
Americans could buy full auto arms from their neighborhood hardware store until 1934. Obviously it wasn't a problem.

And this included some truly dangerous, powerful, long-range items like full-auto M2HBs and similar anti-materiel weapons. These things could stop any military vehicle in existence at the time.

This holy and magical distinction between FA and SA is imaginary nonsense. We should not emphasize it. We shouldn't say, "don't worry, FA weapons aren't legal." We should be saying, "there isn't much difference between FA and SA hand-held weapons. They all have legitimate self-defense, sporting, collecting, and other uses and they are all covered by the RKBA."

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 1:50 PM
You must be kidding.

You want your children in a self defense free "gun free" zone. Why don't you move them to DC? Their "gun free" zones are the best in the country.

I think the Israeli plan is much better.

I never said schools should be "gun free" zones. The teacher's primary concern should be the raising and managing of the children. They are paid to teach, let them do that. Arm the principal and other staff to take care of the defense.

That is my opinion; it will not be swade by all of the arguments in the world and and attacking me with "move to DC [you liberal bastard] is uncalled for".

Consider the liability; I dont trust all the teachers. I say, let each individual school district make the determination on whether teachers carry or not. By allowing teachers to carry as a matter of law, then no school district would have the power to restrict it.


Its the same as any other employer. Employers should have the right to restrict what happens on their properties, including the carrying of firearms. Like it or not it is still their property and their insurance. If you don't like it, find another job.

bulgron
09-26-2007, 2:01 PM
Its the same as any other employer. Employers should have the right to restrict what happens on their properties, including the carrying of firearms. Like it or not it is still their property and their insurance. If you don't like it, find another job.

Correction: an employer that is not the government has this right. However, the 2A prevents the government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, if the employer is a government body, I argue that they should not be allowed to prevent an employee from exercising RKBA.

So your argument only holds water only insofar as a school might be a private institution not in anyway affiliated with the government.

But more to the point, what is the magic thing about being around children that makes us want to disarm responsible adults? I have two children in elementary school right now. And I have to say, if their teachers were so unstable as to not be trusted with guns around my kids, then I don't think I'd want them around my children at all.

Oh, and any employer who prevents me from carrying weapons in their facilities had better do a damn good job of ensuring my safety or they're just begging for a major lawsuit if bad things happen. I can't carry a weapon? Fine. I want to see metal detectors and armed guards constantly patrolling the area. Otherwise no amount of money is enough for me to give up my natural right to self-defense.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 2:14 PM
Correction: an employer that is not the government has this right. However, the 2A prevents the government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, if the employer is a government body, I argue that they should not be allowed to prevent an employee from exercising RKBA.

So your argument only holds water only insofar as a school might be a private institution not in anyway affiliated with the government.

But more to the point, what is the magic thing about being around children that makes us want to disarm responsible adults? I have two children in elementary school right now. And I have to say, if their teachers were so unstable as to not be trusted with guns around my kids, then I don't think I'd want them around my children at all.

Oh, and any employer who prevents me from carrying weapons in their facilities had better do a damn good job of ensuring my safety or they're just begging for a major lawsuit if bad things happen. I can't carry a weapon? Fine. I want to see metal detectors and armed guards constantly patrolling the area. Otherwise no amount of money is enough for me to give up my natural right to self-defense.

I agree with everything you have said. Here is where I differ:

I was a substitute teacher's aide for the Kern County Superintendant of Schools.

I saw many teachers that were frikken crazy... but were teniored. If you are in the teaching field you know that in order to fire a teniored teacher he has to darn near murder a student.

There were MANY teachers that even I would not trust with a gun. If you made it a matter of law, these people could carry and no one could do ANYTHING about it.

I say let the school district decide for itself. They are a private entity and have the right to restrict firearms on their property; plain and simple.

Fjold
09-26-2007, 2:34 PM
There's this crazy history teacher here in Bakersfield that rides a scooter in shorts and bedroom slippers.

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 2:36 PM
I dont trust all the teachers. I say, let each individual school district make the determination on whether teachers carry or not. By allowing teachers to carry as a matter of law, then no school district would have the power to restrict it.

You sound like you are rebutting the idea that teachers should have their own special CCW law. Why not just let the normal CCW process have its say? If they have a CCW permit, they aren't especially extra dangerous; let them carry in the classroom. If they don't have a CCW permit, they aren't especial extra good and don't get to carry.

simonov
09-26-2007, 4:08 PM
There were MANY teachers that even I would not trust with a gun. If you made it a matter of law, these people could carry and no one could do ANYTHING about it.

So in this paragraph you express your disapproval of Shall Issue CCW. After all, I'm sure there are many stock brokers, firemen, warehouse workers, insurance salesmen, nurses, janitors, copier repair guys, computer programmers and mortgage brokers you wouldn't trust with a gun as well.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 4:31 PM
So in this paragraph you express your disapproval of Shall Issue CCW. After all, I'm sure there are many stock brokers, firemen, warehouse workers, insurance salesmen, nurses, janitors, copier repair guys, computer programmers and mortgage brokers you wouldn't trust with a gun as well.

You sound like you are rebutting the idea that teachers should have their own special CCW law. Why not just let the normal CCW process have its say? If they have a CCW permit, they aren't especially extra dangerous; let them carry in the classroom. If they don't have a CCW permit, they aren't especial extra good and don't get to carry.

You guys are missing the point.

Ok, lets take it out of context of guns and place it somewhere else:

Lets say they wanted to pass a law that gave employees the right to wear a shirt that says "I'm gay, and thats OK, ask me why".

Out in public they have a RIGHT to wear that shirt just as we have a right to carry a firearm.

Now lets say that person goes to work at a church that teaches against homosexability.... should that church not have a right to enforce a dress code from its workers? Should that church not have the right to restrict personal expression with regards to its congregation?

I know I am a business owner and while I would have no problem hiring a hard-working homosexable, as soon as he started to flaunt it and express it he would be fired, damn all the consequences. I have that right as a business owner.

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 4:41 PM
You guys are missing the point.

...

Lets say they wanted to pass a law that gave employees the right to wear a shirt that says "I'm gay, and thats OK, ask me why".

And AGAIN you are missing the point we are trying to make. No one is suggesting a new law giving teachers special CCW permission. All we are saying is use the standard CCW policy. If a teacher happens to have a CCW permit in the normal course of events, why should they have to stop carrying just because they are a teacher?

You are arguing against something that no one here is arguing for. Please rebut OUR argument, not yours.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 4:50 PM
And AGAIN you are missing the point we are trying to make. No one is suggesting a new law giving teachers special CCW permission. All we are saying is use the standard CCW policy. If a teacher happens to have a CCW permit in the normal course of events, why should they have to stop carrying just because they are a teacher?

You are arguing against something that no one here is arguing for. Please rebut OUR argument, not yours.

Here is my rebuttal:

With or without a CCW I have a right to tell you not to carry a weapon on my property. You have a right to leave.

By suing the school district she is requesting that a court ORDER her employer to allow her to carry. This is beyond the scope of the court in my opinion. As owners of the property, the school district has a right to restrict possession of anything on the premises.

If the parents don't like it, they can vote in a new school board; if the teachers don't like it they can look for an employer that allows it.

LAK Supply
09-26-2007, 4:52 PM
EPU - Are you suggesting that a teacher who is crazy enough to murder their students is lucid enough to obey a "no guns" ordinance?

LAK Supply
09-26-2007, 4:54 PM
The school district does not ultimately own the property.... the people who pay taxes and own the school district do.


Here is my rebuttal:

With or without a CCW I have a right to tell you not to carry a weapon on my property. You have a right to leave.

By suing the school district she is requesting that a court ORDER her employer to allow her to carry. This is beyond the scope of the court in my opinion. As owners of the property, the school district has a right to restrict possession of anything on the premises.

If the parents don't like it, they can vote in a new school board; if the teachers don't like it they can look for an employer that allows it.

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 4:55 PM
You must be kidding.

You want your children in a self defense free "gun free" zone. Why don't you move them to DC? Their "gun free" zones are the best in the country.

I think the Israeli plan is much better.


Sorry EPU--- NEVER BEFORE have I known a thread of yours for me to disagree with until now & until the "kid's & Teachers" line. I cannot communicate just HOW MUCH I'm more in line with the quote above from othergy and 34879345983488938534958435834439438% against your statement.

You allow guns to protect your money at banks. Why not allow teachers to protect what is UNarguably 1000000000000000000X more important than your money??????????

PS. The ONE teacher went nuts & got shot? Sooooooooo what? thats JUST LIKE how the anti's spin the rest of us. One nutt goes nutty and the rest of us gun lovers are lumped together. Not all teachers are incompetant & truly sorry if you've met ones that were/are. But dont take freedoms away from people while claiming that you're a freedom lover


Certainly NO FLAME meant by anything...I just sincerely hope you would re-think your postion; as from a logical standpoint of professed CCW carry proponent you are now arguing against a class of people NOT being allowed to CCW by lumping them all together under one umbrella of the misappropriated actions of one turd.

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 4:58 PM
Here is my rebuttal:

With or without a CCW I have a right to tell you not to carry a weapon on my property. You have a right to leave.

By suing the school district she is requesting that a court ORDER her employer to allow her to carry. This is beyond the scope of the court in my opinion. As owners of the property, the school district has a right to restrict possession of anything on the premises.

If the parents don't like it, they can vote in a new school board; if the teachers don't like it they can look for an employer that allows it.


problem is that schools ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY... What next? NO CCW on Public Property like a library because kids may be around?

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 5:15 PM
As I have said many times before, this is a property rights argument. The school district owns the property (not the taxpayers).

It is up to the individual school districts to determine what happens on their property. My personal opinion is that teachers should not carry guns at school, but as I said, that should be determined by the district.

We elect the school board, and the school board determines policy. If you want teachers to be able to carry firearms then lobby the school board in your area, don't sue them.

That is my opinion, that is my final answer Regis. I guess I am a democrat now.

hoffmang
09-26-2007, 6:15 PM
EPU: The School district as property owner is we the people. Last I checked, school attendance was mandatory...

:threadjacked:

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 6:19 PM
EPU: The School district as property owner is we the people. Last I checked, school attendance was mandatory...

We the people do not make policy; we the school board does. The school board is ELECTED just like our legislators.

As I said, if you want to change school policy, go to the school board.

Mute
09-26-2007, 6:20 PM
And where exactly does the school district get the money to buy the property?

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 6:23 PM
And where exactly does the school district get the money to buy the property?

The residents near the school.....


Where does California get the revenue to fund the legislature?? You and I. When we want a law changed, we ask our representative. If he fails to change it then we vote for the other guy.


The school district is setup the same way.

bulgron
09-26-2007, 6:41 PM
The residents near the school.....


Where does California get the revenue to fund the legislature?? You and I. When we want a law changed, we ask our representative. If he fails to change it then we vote for the other guy.


The school district is setup the same way.

I think you need to go back and review what a constitutional guarantee is all about.

If we were to agree with your argument, then the BLM can ban all guns on BLM lands, the park service can ban all guns in our national parks, CalTrans can ban all guns on public buses and trains, etc & etc. This would effectively circumvent our constitutional 2A guarantees by placing the rights of a public property holder over that of an individual's right to keep and bear arms (even assuming that Heller is decided the right way).

The bottom line is, "shall not be infringed" means just that. If property is owned and managed by an elected body, then in my opinion that body of individuals should not have the power to prevent me from exercising my RKBA rights there UNLESS they're prepared to take FULL responsibility for my safety in those locations. That means metal detectors and enough armed guards that a reasonable man might assume that he is protected.

This describes our court houses, airports, military facilities, and other government buildings. It DOES NOT describe our schools, parks, forests, public lands, buses, trains, and other public places.

In addition, being a bit of a hard case about this, I believe that the same rule should extend to private property owners. As a private property owner you have the right to prevent me from bringing arms onto your property, that much is true. But I argue that if you DO prevent me from bringing arms onto your property, then you've just assumed ALL responsibility for my safety and well-being by denying me my ability to defend myself. So if you DO prevent me from carrying on your property, when I'm legally allowed to carry arms, and if some nut job shows up and shoots the place up, be prepared for one hell of a lawsuit because if I survive I'll be coming at you with every bottom-feeding lawyer I can find.

Fair enough?

I realize that the law doesn't look much like this right now, especially in California. But that's just a symptom of how screwed up our society really is.

What's even more of a symptom of how badly things have gone in this society is that you, a self-described ardent supporter of the 2A, have fallen prey to the exact same fear mongering that the gun grabbers use all the time to justify ever-more radical gun control.

It is a form of tyranny to

(1) prevent people from defending themselves and others, and
(2) refuse to defend the people you have forced to disarm.

As a matter of principle, tyranny must be resisted at all costs.

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 8:13 PM
In addition, being a bit of a hard case about this, I believe that the same rule should extend to private property owners.

I go along with that when the private property is publicly accessible, like restaurants, gas stations, banks, laundries, whatever. But my home is different in the case of door to door peddlers and evangelists, and it seems to me that random strangers (not counting meter readers or those who I have business with) do not have that right.

However that's a pretty small exception ... I doubt there'd be too many signs sold saying "No armed soliciting" :-)

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 9:17 PM
I think you need to go back and review what a constitutional guarantee is all about.

If we were to agree with your argument, then the BLM can ban all guns on BLM lands, the park service can ban all guns in our national parks, CalTrans can ban all guns on public buses and trains, etc & etc. This would effectively circumvent our constitutional 2A guarantees by placing the rights of a public property holder over that of an individual's right to keep and bear arms (even assuming that Heller is decided the right way).


There is a key difference here; a school is not "public land". It is owned by the school district. The school district gets funding from the residents but the land itself is not owned by the city, state, or country, it is owned by the individual school district. I do not have access to the local schools. I cannot simply go out and play with the kids on recess because my tax money paid for the toys.

Furthermore, as a member of the general public, not an employee of the district, I have the right to carry. As soon as I become employed by that district if they tell me not to carry, I have the right to no longer be employed by them.


The bottom line is, "shall not be infringed" means just that. If property is owned and managed by an elected body, then in my opinion that body of individuals should not have the power to prevent me from exercising my RKBA rights there UNLESS they're prepared to take FULL responsibility for my safety in those locations.

I agree 100%. I have the right to carry a weapon. If the school district restricts that right and I am injured as a result I should have the right to sue; that is a civil matter however.



That means metal detectors and enough armed guards that a reasonable man might assume that he is protected.

All of that need not be present to warrant exercise of their right to restrict you. They take a risk of civil liability when they do it but because they do NOT have those precautions in place does not mean that they cannot restrict you. They have the right to restrict it. If they do and you are hurt because of it then you may sue them; that’s the way it works.


This describes our court houses, airports, military facilities, and other government buildings. It DOES NOT describe our schools, parks, forests, public lands, buses, trains, and other public places.


Why does it matter where you are at? You get mad that teachers cannot carry at school but it’s ok that we are not allowed to carry at the post office?

I am of the opinion that as a patron... a customer of the post office, in a public place, I have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. If I were a postman, the USPS would have the right to restrict ME from carrying, but not the customers.

I feel that the populous should be allowed to carry on a school campus provided that they are otherwise lawfully present. The teachers are employees and THAT is where the district has a right to restrict it.


In addition, being a bit of a hard case about this, I believe that the same rule should extend to private property owners. As a private property owner you have the right to prevent me from bringing arms onto your property, that much is true. But I argue that if you DO prevent me from bringing arms onto your property, then you've just assumed ALL responsibility for my safety and well-being by denying me my ability to defend myself. So if you DO prevent me from carrying on your property, when I'm legally allowed to carry arms, and if some nut job shows up and shoots the place up, be prepared for one hell of a lawsuit because if I survive I'll be coming at you with every bottom-feeding lawyer I can find.

Again, we are in 100% agreement.


I realize that the law doesn't look much like this right now, especially in California. But that's just a symptom of how screwed up our society really is.

What's even more of a symptom of how badly things have gone in this society is that you, a self-described ardent supporter of the 2A, have fallen prey to the exact same fear mongering that the gun grabbers use all the time to justify ever-more radical gun control.

I have fallen prey to no such animal. I have to think of it in the frame of mind of the property owner. I have no more rights than any other property owner. Because the school used public funds to buy the property says nothing. Let’s say I used state and federal grants to pay for my home. Does that mean you as a tax payer have the right to come into my home and do as you wish because tax money paid for it? Of course not. We are talking about employees of a company. If as a business owner I have the right to restrict firearms possession by my employees, then school districts have that right too.


It is a form of tyranny to

(1) prevent people from defending themselves and others, and
(2) refuse to defend the people you have forced to disarm.

As a matter of principle, tyranny must be resisted at all costs.

It is not tyranny. Tyranny is the oppression by one's government. You are not REQUIRED to work for the school district. If you work for the school district and want to find a job that lets you carry a weapon, then find another job; it is that simple.

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 9:18 PM
I go along with that when the private property is publicly accessible, like restaurants, gas stations, banks, laundries, whatever.

There are two ways to think about publicly accessible property and rights. (I am not talking about private clubs. That is a whole nuther ball of wax of a different aroma.) Is it proper for businesses to exclude blacks and Jews and women?

Maybe it should be legal, since it is private property. As long as I restrict my thoughts to the abstract, it sounds reasonable. But when I think about a real world where every business has its own set of rules on who can enter (no blacks, no irish, no Muslims, women have to disrobe and pass a looks test ...) you can get pretty silly, but the such a society would be impractical to live in. What if you want to meet friends for lunch? You may well have so many races and religions that you spend too long looking. Gas stations -- can you imagine being from out of town and low on gas? Life would be one miserable mess if every business could put those kinds of limits on who comes in.

It seems to me that if you are in business with the public, then you have to be in business with all the public. Of course there may be dress codes (no shorts no shoes no service), bums who haven't bathed in a month will always be unwelcome, obnoxious jerks can still get thrown out for offending other customers -- but arbitrary restrictions are not in that category.

I don't see CCW as any different from race or gender. Even aside from the practical problem of giving up your gun (and showing everybody that you are a CCW!), why single out CCW? Why single out schools?

We already have too damned many laws in this country. There are way too many arbitrary confusions about guns, cars, houses, and every thing else the nanny staters can get their paws into. Why make more arbitrary restrictions?

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 9:26 PM
I go along with that when the private property is publicly accessible, like restaurants, gas stations, banks, laundries, whatever. But my home is different in the case of door to door peddlers and evangelists, and it seems to me that random strangers (not counting meter readers or those who I have business with) do not have that right.

However that's a pretty small exception ... I doubt there'd be too many signs sold saying "No armed soliciting" :-)

I would like to be armed everywhere, however I would never impose a law requiring private property owners to accommodate my desire to do that. They may then incur liability for my safety if they allow me on their property. I cannot support a law that violates private property rights, a right which should be just a sacred as any other natural right. In fact, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment stating the the "government shall not infringe upon private property rights" (the Third Amendment is an example of this) and that would include no taxation of property too. The 5th Amentment - "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." should already provide for this but doesn't sadly. We all are just renters if the government can tax and regulate our land away from our control.




.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 9:32 PM
I would like to be armed everywhere, however I would never impose a law requiring private property owners to accommodate my desire to do that. They may then incur liability for my safety if they allow me on their property. I cannot support a law that violates private property rights, a right which should be just a sacred as any other natural right. In fact, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment stating the the "government shall not infringe upon private property rights" (the Third Amendment is an example of this) and that would include no taxation of property too. We all are just renters if the government can tax and regulate our land away from our control.

Then I am not alone.... :)

Maybe you should move to DC with me you liberal bastard... :)

bulgron
09-26-2007, 9:44 PM
Why does it matter where you are at? You get mad that teachers cannot carry at school but itís ok that we are not allowed to carry at the post office?

Who said that I'm not mad about not being able to carry at the post office? Heck, at the moment I'm not allowed to carry anywhere due to the unconstitutional way that CCWs are administered in my county. I'm flat-out mad about our carry laws, period.

My point, which you seem to have missed, at least in part, is that once a person is legally able to carry, then there is no good excuse for anyone to prevent them from carrying. While a business may have the right to keep their employees from carrying, I argue that it is immoral to do so (unless the business is surrounding the employees with armed guards).

I am of the opinion that as a patron... a customer of the post office, in a public place, I have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. If I were a postman, the USPS would have the right to restrict ME from carrying, but not the customers.

Why should your status as an employee change anything? Is the fact that you are now an employee liable to suddenly turn you into a raging mass murderer? Hardly. Yet this is exactly the position that you seem to be taking.

How about a pizza delivery man who works a dicy part of town? Do you think his employer has the right to require him to deliver pizzas unarmed?

Perhaps employers currently have the legal ability to do these things. But at the end of the day, I view employee disarmaments as every bit as immoral as our current CCW issuance laws. Employers simply should not exercise this legal ability.

You say, "Oh, well, just go and get another job," but that's easier said than done, isn't it? What a horrible choice to force a man to make: either disarm, and risk being defenseless in the midst of an armed attack, or go hungry.

Maybe it's legal to force someone into that corner, but without a doubt it's also immoral.

I feel that the populous should be allowed to carry on a school campus provided that they are otherwise lawfully present. The teachers are employees and THAT is where the district has a right to restrict it.

They might have the legal ability to prevent their employees from carrying, but I'm loathe to call it a right, now that I think about it.

The Bill of Rights were meant to restrict government from infringing on rights that the people hold no matter what the government does. That a similar Bill of Rights was never issued against business owners doesn't mean the the people don't continue to retain their rights even when employed by a private business.

Tell me, if, by a strange twist of history, all of the US government military was outsourced to Blackwater USA (a private firm), would the American people retain their 3rd Amendment guarantee against having a solider quartered in their house during a time of peace?

Think about it.


Letís say I used state and federal grants to pay for my home. Does that mean you as a tax payer have the right to come into my home and do as you wish because tax money paid for it?

Strawman. The US constitution does not protect my right to go anywhere I want and do whatever I want while I'm there.



It is not tyranny. Tyranny is the oppression by one's government.

You need to read a little history. Check out the history of the 14th amendment and how the freed slaves were treated in the south in the aftermath of the civil war. They were not directly oppressed by their government, but they were in fact prevented from protecting themselves which resulted in much of the same conditions as if the government had taken a direct hand in things. This was and is a form of tyranny; just not a form that modern Americans are well-acquainted with.

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 9:45 PM
There is a key difference here; a school is not "public land". It is owned by the school district. The school district gets funding from the residents but the land itself is not owned by the city, state, or country, it is owned by the individual school district.

If the government forces us to pay for it under threat of the police power then it is public and the government shouldn't be able to infringe on the 2A, be it a school, legislative building, park, court, etc.... A simple solution is to get the government out of the school monopoly subsidy business. Freedom would do our schools good by returning them to the market place of ideas; free from central control. Then these non government schools would not be hampered by constitutional prohibition problems and could set their own firearm regulations. I know my kids would go to the one that let parents and teachers defend themselves and their students. California imposes 626.9 PC even on private schools.

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 9:56 PM
I draw the line between what is public and what is private. A public employee should never be prohibited by government from exercising the 2A. However a private company, through private contract and private property rights, may dictate a no firearms policy.

If I want the best employees working for me I'll offer the best benefits I can and that might include carry privileges (concealed or open) as it may effect my business relationship with customers.

Government services are generally monopolies (post office or records clerk etc...jobs) so their customers, the public, don't really have a choice in dealing with them so having armed public employees is not a business factor. I would not want to force any public employee (except police) to be armed however.

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 10:37 PM
In fact, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment stating the the "government shall not infringe upon private property rights" (the Third Amendment is an example of this) and that would include no taxation of property too.

So if someone buys all the land surrounding yours and builds 100 story skyscrapers and blocks all but a piddling little noon sunlight, would that be ok with you? Of course they'd have to leave you access, but no doubt a tunnel thru one of the buildings would suffice.

How about a sewage treatment plant or slaughterhouse? Who decides what is an acceptable level of stink?

How about a fireworks factory? Who decides what is an acceptable level of danger?

How about playing a radio so loud that you can't hear yourself think? Who decides what volume is acceptable?

How about floodlights so bright that you can't even look at their property in daylight without welding glasses? How about ordinary floodlights which happen to be aimed right at your front door? What about an arc welder in the garage which you can see from your upstairs bedroom window? Who decides what is acceptable?

Absolutes always have exceptions. You might be fine with all those absolutes, but most people aren't. One of the problems of living near other people is that there are other people to co-exist with. No doubt some would call it socialism to let me have some say over what my neighbor can do on his property. All I can say is "No man is an island." If that makes me a socialist, so be it.

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 10:55 PM
Oh lordy.......... Where to start.

DEBATEABLE at best about NO CCW at post offices...been parle'd about many a board and there ARE exemptions.

Private property "rights" ...LAND rights should NEVER override PERSONAL FREEDOMS. So even ifffffffffff you get me to buy in about a homeowner saying no to my ccw ((and thereby takes FULL AND ABSOLUTE responsability for my safety)) I still call B.S.... I DONT and never will offer MY OWN responsabilty to others.

Public land. School districts own the deed. But the property IS open to the public...ALL public. IF cops can carry there- then so should CCW be allowed.. PERIOD.


WOW guys. Liberty AND EPU...agai, I KINDLY ask you to re-think your positions as they are (((((((at least to me))))))) coming across as much the same illogical, non thought to the fullest extent kind of ZUMBO-ism there is. "We love freedom" BUT.............. "But" we ALL know is a polite way of saying I heard you so now I'll disregard everything you just said and tell you how I FEEL.......

Feelings and logic DONT mix; never have, never will. Logically, if it is ok for a run of the mill "dude" to come onto campus legally with a gun, then logically it should follow someone else also legally licenced should be able to carry..... regardless of thier occupation regardless if its for the school.

Private corp & non CCW. All I can say is screw 'em. They dont want me and my kind- so be it, let them die a slow death of ineptitude and self-reliant ILLUSION that the cops will protect them. Hope thier families get on tv and say it alll coulda been prevented if Daddy had just let the employees carry a gun but no, daddy had to say no to guns and now the BG's walked in and daddy called the cops and they didn't arrive in time.

YOUR rights END where mine begin. There is NO WAY IN HELL that anyone can subjegate or dismiss personal safety. Call it personal property rights if you want. Call it homeowners proprty rights too. I call it balderdash anti-gun, anti freedom, anti liberty, anti protection, anti- american good old fasioned crap.

So again gents; PLEASE reconsider your postions...a LOT of peeps watch & read and never post; Unfortunately your posts DO send the messege that there actually is some front that we can agree on with the anti-gunners of our shared country; And there IS NOT any room to be shared with the enemy.

E Pluribus Unum
09-26-2007, 11:00 PM
My point, which you seem to have missed, at least in part, is that once a person is legally able to carry, then there is no good excuse for anyone to prevent them from carrying. While a business may have the right to keep their employees from carrying, I argue that it is immoral to do so (unless the business is surrounding the employees with armed guards).


There is no disagreement there. You acknowledge that the right is there, but asinine if exercised.


Why should your status as an employee change anything? Is the fact that you are now an employee liable to suddenly turn you into a raging mass murderer? Hardly. Yet this is exactly the position that you seem to be taking.


So this is why you thought I was corrupted by the media? I know that it is no more likely... but here is the difference.

You are my employee and you represent your employer, ME. You are expected and required to represent to my patrons that which I tell you to while on the clock. If a customer feels uncomfortable with you having a gun, they will find someone else to do their computer work. I may not agree with the customer but your "right" to carry a gun has just cost me money. You get your money regardless because you get an hourly wage. When I lose a customer because of your "right" I lose food on my table.

Any business man will tell you unless they are a close customer, NEVER talk politics, religion, or ethics with customers; any business that takes a stance on an issue will always anger the other side and cost themselves business, I am a computer tech; on the job I talk computers and that is IT. I listen to liberal customer’s bizzle and complain about the hunters and what they do to the poor little deer all the while I am gritting my teeth and thinking of the liberal tree huggers restricting my hunting.... but afterwards I take their check to the bank and pay my mortgage. If I have to do it, then you do too as my employee; I have that right as your employer.

The school district should have the same rights as any other employer.


How about a pizza delivery man who works a dicy part of town? Do you think his employer has the right to require him to deliver pizzas unarmed?

Of course. As my employee he represents my business... and ME. If he hurts someone I have to pay for it. Should I not be able to decide which liability I will take? The risk of him shooting someone, or the risk of him getting shot without protection? If the employee wants to protect himself then he can either risk getting fired by carrying anyway... or quit.


You say, "Oh, well, just go and get another job," but that's easier said than done, isn't it? What a horrible choice to force a man to make: either disarm, and risk being defenseless in the midst of an armed attack, or go hungry.


That’s pretty much the jest of it. As a representative of a business you have to portray the message the employer wants; not you.



The Bill of Rights were meant to restrict government from infringing on rights that the people hold no matter what the government does. That a similar Bill of Rights was never issued against business owners doesn't mean the the people don't continue to retain their rights even when employed by a private business.

The point you are missing is: the constitution protects you from the government. It does not protect you from contractual agreements. When you work for a company you are contracting to do what they ask you to. You can then terminate the contract but so long as you are collecting compensation (money) you must do what they ask of you. You are not constitutionally protected a job.


Tell me, if, by a strange twist of history, all of the US government military was outsourced to Blackwater USA (a private firm), would the American people retain their 3rd Amendment guarantee against having a solider quartered in their house during a time of peace?

Of course; the US military is not limited to just the armed forces. If it were outsourced, then they would become the US military.

You need to read a little history.
You need to be not so condescending and pretentious. I know enough about history to shame most teachers.


Check out the history of the 14th amendment and how the freed slaves were treated in the south in the aftermath of the civil war. They were not directly oppressed by their government, but they were in fact prevented from protecting themselves which resulted in much of the same conditions as if the government had taken a direct hand in things. This was and is a form of tyranny; just not a form that modern Americans are well-acquainted with.

I assume you are speaking of the "black codes" and that WAS the government. Legislature passed laws restricting African American activities. It was later struck down by the SCOTUS and has been used many times in anti-discrimination lawsuits.

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 11:03 PM
I think you need to go back and review what a constitutional guarantee is all about.


The bottom line is, "shall not be infringed" means just that.

In addition, being a bit of a hard case about this, I believe that the same rule should extend to private property owners.

What's even more of a symptom of how badly things have gone in this society is that you, a self-described ardent supporter of the 2A, have fallen prey to the exact same fear mongering that the gun grabbers use all the time to justify ever-more radical gun control.

It is a form of tyranny to

(1) prevent people from defending themselves and others, and
(2) refuse to defend the people you have forced to disarm.

As a matter of principle, tyranny must be resisted at all costs.


All Absolutely A-Freakin' men Brother:D Missed that in my first read. Freedom first;)

metalhead357
09-26-2007, 11:15 PM
I listen to liberal customer’s bizzle and complain about the hunters and what they do to the poor little deer all the while I am gritting my teeth and thinking of the liberal tree huggers restricting my hunting.... but afterwards I take their check to the bank and pay my mortgage. If I have to do it, then you do too as my employee; I have that right as your employer..


Sorry E~ But that sounds like a cop out and EXACTLY why we are loosing ground. Rather than take the time to politely point out inconsistancies, illogic, and be UP FRONT that you are a freedom supporter and a gun lover-- you'll sit passively by as the BS fills the air and you get paid. Thanks for looking out for the rest of us.............:cool:

Unfortunately I think I've personally reached a cross roads here on this thread....and it saddens me. I feel absolutely complled to say exactly the type of verbology and nounisms that come to mind about that type of business practice and all the ilks and seams therein that afront those businesses and owners. Good manners and ALL our standings here, and possible thread closure, good nettiqutte, and my own personal history of liking both you guy's and everything else I've ever read from you both, all essentially dictate that I just shut up from here and not take ((or make)) this one personal. I would be amiss if I said that I dont, I hadn't, and I haven't.....for that I am sorry. For the views expressed herin by you both...it just saddens me to no end...............................................


Metalhead out until I calm down.

bulgron
09-26-2007, 11:32 PM
I find that I have nothing further to say to E so I'm out of this thread. Obviously, as a business owner, E is willing to compromise fundamental, critical rights. As an employee, I am not. If (when) the state goes "shall-issue" on CCWs, E will become one of many employers that I will refuse to work for. But then I have the luxury of being able to go my own way.

I'm done with this discussion.

Peace.

Liberty1
09-27-2007, 12:03 AM
So if someone buys all the land surrounding yours and builds 100 story skyscrapers and blocks all but a piddling little noon sunlight, would that be ok with you? Of course they'd have to leave you access, but no doubt a tunnel thru one of the buildings would suffice.

How about a sewage treatment plant or slaughterhouse? Who decides what is an acceptable level of stink?

How about a fireworks factory? Who decides what is an acceptable level of danger?

How about playing a radio so loud that you can't hear yourself think? Who decides what volume is acceptable?

How about floodlights so bright that you can't even look at their property in daylight without welding glasses? How about ordinary floodlights which happen to be aimed right at your front door? What about an arc welder in the garage which you can see from your upstairs bedroom window? Who decides what is acceptable?

Absolutes always have exceptions. You might be fine with all those absolutes, but most people aren't. One of the problems of living near other people is that there are other people to co-exist with. No doubt some would call it socialism to let me have some say over what my neighbor can do on his property. All I can say is "No man is an island." If that makes me a socialist, so be it.

Good points. Some of those issues could be taken care of within the civil courts. I consider noise and or air pollution to be a form of trespass that could be litigated rather then the government allowing certain levels of pollution even though it may be harmful to persons and property. Home owners associations allow someone to live within a private community with rules of their choosing etc...Government isn't always needed to sort these things out legislatively.

Still I like your thoughts, and I do type mainly in a "utopian" way for argument sake.

Good night all and sorry to some for having created an "exploding head / duct tape required" zone. Take two aspirin and call Dr. Paul (to give him you CC number) in the morning - you'll feel better. :p

E Pluribus Unum
09-27-2007, 12:22 AM
Sorry E~ But that sounds like a cop out and EXACTLY why we are loosing ground. Rather than take the time to politely point out inconsistancies, illogic, and be UP FRONT that you are a freedom supporter and a gun lover-- you'll sit passively by as the BS fills the air and you get paid. Thanks for looking out for the rest of us.............:cool:

Unfortunately I think I've personally reached a cross roads here on this thread....and it saddens me. I feel absolutely complled to say exactly the type of verbology and nounisms that come to mind about that type of business practice and all the ilks and seams therein that afront those businesses and owners. Good manners and ALL our standings here, and possible thread closure, good nettiqutte, and my own personal history of liking both you guy's and everything else I've ever read from you both, all essentially dictate that I just shut up from here and not take ((or make)) this one personal. I would be amiss if I said that I dont, I hadn't, and I haven't.....for that I am sorry. For the views expressed herin by you both...it just saddens me to no end...............................................


Metalhead out until I calm down.

You should not take it so personally. Two people can discuss an issue with differing opinions without becoming angry. Discussion is healthy. By me not agreeing with you, I am not attacking you personally why would you become so offended? Especially considering we do not know each other. Relax friend, pop a top, relax... no one is coming to take your guns... :)

simonov
09-27-2007, 6:27 AM
Then I am not alone....

No, you're not alone. I don't disagree that business owners and property owners (including school boards) should have some say over whether people can carry guns on their property.

I just don't understand what is so special about schools and about teachers as a group. That makes no sense at all. There seems to be a presumption on your part that people who work in classrooms have less need to protect themselves than other people (people like yourself perhaps). Haven't you been reading the news?

And your initial arguments for why teachers shouldn't have CCW sounded precisely like the arguments used by the gun grabbers for why NO ONE should have CCW.

mblat
09-27-2007, 9:13 AM
Somewhere I read a quote by Jefferson opposing weapons on college campuses. <shrugs>

How about this: We like it or not majority of people would feel uneasy about legally allowing teachers carry during classes. This is reality. We like it or not by majority of school boards are populated by people who generally anti-gun. That is also a reality.
So the only solution seems to be "incremental change". Let' push for the volunteers from retired cops and military to be allowed to CCW on campuses. Like they do in Israel. Let' push for special "school-zone" training for CCW holders, so they can also their volunteer time. Let's push for repeal of 1000 yard zones, so for very least guns can be fairly close.
Before you can go to the Moon you have be able to orbit Earth.

E Pluribus Unum
09-27-2007, 10:24 AM
No, you're not alone. I don't disagree that business owners and property owners (including school boards) should have some say over whether people can carry guns on their property.

I just don't understand what is so special about schools and about teachers as a group. That makes no sense at all. There seems to be a presumption on your part that people who work in classrooms have less need to protect themselves than other people (people like yourself perhaps). Haven't you been reading the news?

And your initial arguments for why teachers shouldn't have CCW sounded precisely like the arguments used by the gun grabbers for why NO ONE should have CCW.

That is just my personal opinion. If I were the king of a school board, I would not allow the teachers to carry; I would hire campus police to protect the students and the staff. That is just a personal opinion I have but as I said, it is up to the board.

simonov
09-27-2007, 10:43 AM
That is just my personal opinion. If I were the king of a school board, I would not allow the teachers to carry; I would hire campus police to protect the students and the staff. That is just a personal opinion I have but as I said, it is up to the board.

So no CCW on school premises. So if someone with a CCW wants to drop his kid off, he has to make sure he leaves the gun at home. I'm sure that makes a lot of sense to you, but it makes as much sense to me as CCW bans at churches, McDonald's and museums.

Or are we discussing highly specific discrimination directed at teachers, due to their career choice?

I don't know about where you went to school, but the closest police station to my high school was probably five miles away.

Mute
09-27-2007, 12:21 PM
That is just my personal opinion. If I were the king of a school board, I would not allow the teachers to carry; I would hire campus police to protect the students and the staff. That is just a personal opinion I have but as I said, it is up to the board.

Well, we know how effective that has been. I feel much better now.

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 3:21 PM
You should not take it so personally. Two people can discuss an issue with differing opinions without becoming angry. Discussion is healthy. By me not agreeing with you, I am not attacking you personally why would you become so offended? Especially considering we do not know each other. Relax friend, pop a top, relax... no one is coming to take your guns... :)


E~ when you're right you're right. For me the 2nd Amend is about as personal as it gets, ranks on up there with God, grandma and aplle pie....so either truth, reason or simply an unjustified rational-- I did/do take it personal when I 'feel' my ardent beliefs are being undermined one peg at a time. But hey; We can agree to disagree civilily and peacably. God's honest truth though is that I am just..........stumped over your (and by secondary postion Liberty's) conclusions on this issue as I've never faound fault in your threads or for want of a better term...never found lacking in anything. Just this thread...has pushed some buttons. I will take a breather, a break, and will be back to this post after some time.......

M- out for a bit from this one;)

E Pluribus Unum
09-27-2007, 3:26 PM
E~ when you're right you're right. For me the 2nd Amend is about as personal as it gets, ranks on up there with God, grandma and aplle pie....so either truth, reason or simply an unjustified rational-- I did/do take it personal when I 'feel' my ardent beliefs are being undermined one peg at a time. But hey; We can agree to disagree civilily and peacably. God's honest truth though is that I am just..........stumped over your (and by secondary postion Liberty's) conclusions on this issue as I've never faound fault in your threads or for want of a better term...never found lacking in anything. Just this thread...has pushed some buttons. I will take a breather, a break, and will be back to this post after some time.......

M- out for a bit from this one;)

What it comes down to is your personal freedoms do not exist on my property.

You do not have the right to assemble; you do not have the right to do ANYTHING on my property, plain and simple. I am the lord of my things and if you want to be on my property then you do as I say or leave.

The school district is just another property owner.


Now... if I have a public place, like a business I give up some of my property rights. Private citizens in my public place retain their personal liberties, as do employees. The clincher is, if I say "No firearms allowed by employees" and that employee brings a firearm, I can fire him.

How is that hard to understand?

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 3:59 PM
What it comes down to is your personal freedoms do not exist on my property.

............you do not have the right to do ANYTHING on my property, plain and simple. I am the lord of my things and if you want to be on my property then you do as I say or leave.

How is that hard to understand?

E~ I'll go easy & try not to get worked up. To me it is simple...

PROPERTY RIGHTS do NOT overide PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
You give me permission to come visit you at home; so have I left my first amedment right at the front door? Have I given up my right to self-preservation? Have I lost my right to self defense if I enter within? Have I left my right to be protected against unreasonable searches and siezures at the door? Has the ability to be tried by a jury of my peers disappeared for EITHER of us if you or me do something stooopid enough to get arrested?

Its simple....They dont stop at your door. You CAN CERTAINLY ASK that people dont carry in your home...much like you can ask they dont swear in your home....but thier RIGHT to do either is supreme.... You can then always ask a gun carrier or a filthy mouthed bastard to LEAVE your home and I will certainly say you've got that right. But "MY" rights DO NOT stop at your doorstep.

I ask that you re-read what the others and I have said in regards to taking your....theory/opinion/belief to the logical end; if one does then any public place can be opted out of the CCW system...as well as many other rights. And that is an end run around the rights we all have; its invalid on its face...its asnine on its face.

But I can tell ya' this for certain; I'm sure I'm NOT alone. Your house IS your house & can conduct it as you see fit.... but if you think there's anyone who's knowingly going to step foot inside your house knowing they've abandoned all thier freedoms and responsibilites unto the lord of the manor............ well, you're gonna be one loney & bored & never visited dude....save maybe the mental health professionals seeking to see if the megolomania has endangered anyone living there with you......

Sgt Raven
09-27-2007, 4:22 PM
Sorry E~ But that sounds like a cop out and EXACTLY why we are loosing ground. Rather than take the time to politely point out inconsistancies, illogic, and be UP FRONT that you are a freedom supporter and a gun lover-- you'll sit passively by as the BS fills the air and you get paid. Thanks for looking out for the rest of us.............:cool:

Unfortunately I think I've personally reached a cross roads here on this thread....and it saddens me. I feel absolutely complled to say exactly the type of verbology and nounisms that come to mind about that type of business practice and all the ilks and seams therein that afront those businesses and owners. Good manners and ALL our standings here, and possible thread closure, good nettiqutte, and my own personal history of liking both you guy's and everything else I've ever read from you both, all essentially dictate that I just shut up from here and not take ((or make)) this one personal. I would be amiss if I said that I dont, I hadn't, and I haven't.....for that I am sorry. For the views expressed herin by you both...it just saddens me to no end...............................................


Metalhead out until I calm down.

Metalhead, like you I can't say what I really feel or the thread would be locked and I'd be banned. :eek::rolleyes:

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 4:33 PM
Metalhead, like you I can't say what I really feel or the thread would be locked and I'd be banned. :eek::rolleyes:


Whats that line? Friends dont let friends drive chevys!:p


O wait- wrong forum for that one;) Its just hard...pretty dam hard to watch other rabid posters like myself talk, rant, post, and love freedom & guns....and yet come to an entirely different conclusion about CCW carry. The fact that the argument(s) tilt towards anti-gun rhetoric IMO just weigh pretty heavy on me & lead me to either fear or dread that there are others that share these same opinions expressed by these two; Heck- They ARE free to express them...and I'm free to dislike them (I do). I've often wonderd sometimes WHY "WE" as gunners & freedom lovers have yet to turn back the tides of anti-gunners in this state.............. So while IT MAY BE A LEAP....but the opinions here just fathom towards more gun control under the guise of property rights:cool: I aint buying it. I hope and pray that they'll re-think thier stance............

But my bad mouthing aint gonna win friends & kin over to 'my way of thinking'...so be it; I'm just deathly afraid that if I DONT speak up there will unfortunately be more that DO believe that these arguments hold some middle-ground of moral "OK-ness"...and I just find THAT thought.....disheartening.

E Pluribus Unum
09-27-2007, 4:39 PM
E~ I'll go easy & try not to get worked up. To me it is simple...

PROPERTY RIGHTS do NOT overide PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
You give me permission to come visit you at home; so have I left my first amedment right at the front door? Have I given up my right to self-preservation? Have I lost my right to self defense if I enter within? Have I left my right to be protected against unreasonable searches and siezures at the door? Has the ability to be tried by a jury of my peers disappeared for EITHER of us if you or me do something stooopid enough to get arrested?

Its simple....They dont stop at your door. You CAN CERTAINLY ASK that people dont carry in your home...much like you can ask they dont swear in your home....but thier RIGHT to do either is supreme.... You can then always ask a gun carrier or a filthy mouthed bastard to LEAVE your home and I will certainly say you've got that right. But "MY" rights DO NOT stop at your doorstep.

I ask that you re-read what the others and I have said in regards to taking your....theory/opinion/belief to the logical end; if one does then any public place can be opted out of the CCW system...as well as many other rights. And that is an end run around the rights we all have; its invalid on its face...its asnine on its face.

But I can tell ya' this for certain; I'm sure I'm NOT alone. Your house IS your house & can conduct it as you see fit.... but if you think there's anyone who's knowingly going to step foot inside your house knowing they've abandoned all thier freedoms and responsibilites unto the lord of the manor............ well, you're gonna be one loney & bored & never visited dude....save maybe the mental health professionals seeking to see if the megolomania has endangered anyone living there with you......


It changes if you are my EMPLOYEE. As i said... You represent ME... so I have a right to tell you what to say and do while on the clock. THAT is the difference.

bulgron
09-27-2007, 4:42 PM
But my bad mouthing aint gonna win friends & kin over to 'my way of thinking'...so be it; I'm just deathly afraid that if I DONT speak up there will unfortunately be more that DO believe that these arguments hold some middle-ground of moral "OK-ness"...and I just find THAT thought.....disheartening.

Metalhead, you KNOW I agree with you 100%. But let's remember that we have lots bigger fish to fry right now, like even getting this state to be shall-issue. This entire argument represents a wedge that can drive our ranks apart. We are divided enough as it is.

For now and the foreseeable future, business owners have the legal ability (I won't call it a right) to prevent their employees from carrying on the job. Frankly, if this was a sane world, the employers who did that would be looking long and hard for people to work for them. But we don't live in that world.

So philosophically I think you've got it right, and morally I think you've got it right. But tactically ... well, best to focus our energies elsewhere for now, yeah?

bulgron
09-27-2007, 4:44 PM
It changes if you are my EMPLOYEE. As i said... You represent ME... so I have a right to tell you what to say and do while on the clock. THAT is the difference.

Correction, you have the legal ability to do so in the same way that someone has the physical ability to make you do what they want if they're holding a gun on you and threatening your life. But that is not a right. That is merely brute force.

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 4:45 PM
It changes if you are my EMPLOYEE. As i said... You represent ME... so I have a right to tell you what to say and do while on the clock. THAT is the difference.


Seriously beg to differ; while AT MOST some fashion of freedoms are curtailed by employment-- freedoms on the whole are not subrogated to the aprking lot.

Same arguments E~ just different guise. I as an employee do not give up my right to self protection, freedom of speech, the ability to own anything, the freedom to do as I choose, forgo search & siezure, etc....

Granted.... you as employer may fire me for 'cause' but if you state that cause then we'd be before a judge and let the bottom feeding ambulance chasers have at it; None of that changes that the rights still exist.

Scarecrow Repair
09-27-2007, 6:17 PM
It changes if you are my EMPLOYEE. As i said... You represent ME... so I have a right to tell you what to say and do while on the clock. THAT is the difference.

People do not turn into your personal property while on the clock. Slavery has been abolished in this country. You don't have the right to tell people to cut off arms and legs, to tell black people to wear white makeup, to tell people what to eat and not eat. You can require wearing uniforms or treating customers nicely. But you don't have the right to take away constitutional rights, just like metalhead says.

dfletcher
09-27-2007, 6:53 PM
If M357 & EPU happen to show up on my doorstep at the same time I'd be kind of nervous - I think I'd ask them to stash their pistolas and grab a beer.:cheers2:

Liberty1
09-27-2007, 7:14 PM
But you don't have the right to take away constitutional rights, just like metalhead says.

The constitution is only binding on government action, not private action. Private property and the ability to regulate your use of it and who you let on it is yours. It is your right as the property owner and business owner. The constitution should and does is some ways protect the property owners rights to OWN what is rightfully theirs. Their property right is a natural right just like keeping and bearing arms.

We get to exercise our rights until our actions interfere with anothers equal right to exercise their rights. If you come on my property using you rights to speech, or arms and I want you to leave, your rights are not being denied by government. If you don't leave my land you'll be trespassing on my right to control my land. I personally welcome your arms and friendship. But I don't want government to tell someone else who to let on their property or I have just given up my ability to live free in the way I choose on my land and with my possessions (business). And yes the same should be applied to private business and private employee contracts.



.

E Pluribus Unum
09-27-2007, 7:35 PM
As an employee, you become MY liability. If you go out and do something on the clock, working for me, I can get sued. THAT gives me the right to say what happens.

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 8:17 PM
If M357 & EPU happen to show up on my doorstep at the same time I'd be kind of nervous - I think I'd ask them to stash their pistolas and grab a beer.:cheers2:


LOL! Alaskan Amber Ale please;)

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 8:56 PM
The constitution is only binding on government action, not private action. ........... Their property right is a natural right just like keeping and bearing arms.

We get to exercise our rights until our actions interfere with anothers equal right to exercise their rights. If you come on my property using you rights to speech, or arms and I want you to leave, your rights are not being denied by government. If you don't leave my land you'll be trespassing on my right to control my land. I personally welcome your arms and friendship.

But I don't want government to tell someone else who to let on their property or I have just given up my ability to live free in the way I choose on my land and with my possessions (business). And yes the same should be applied to private business and private employee contracts.
.

Part one is correct to a point; Property rights Do stem from personal freedoms...but not the other way around and therefore your property right(s0 as explained impeed upn my personal freedoms...net result= personal freedoms win out over property rights.

Part II I have absolutely nothing against in its first half...wondering in fact why you wrote it as it litterally mimicks waht we've been saying. The only contentious part therein is that you say that "it" limits ONLY the government- that is a falsity on its face; the natural rights (presumably you're including the bill of rights...which is NOT all one's natural rights) guraneenteed by the the BOR et. al. is an acceptance of the rights owned by all and the rights owned by the one. But you make a mid-thought & mid sentence flip to say that a government cannot, while a person or persons CAN violate anothers freedoms UNfettered...which is beyond absurd. The govenrment cant punch you in the head but I am not the government so therefore I CAN punch you in the head........ Doesn't fly; not by a long, short or medium shot- its dead on arrival.

Part III is the most contentious....... "I DONT WANT" for "me" (You liberty) the goobermint to tell me what to do with me or mine on my land But I (you liberty) are all for the governemnt to tell me (Metalhead) what to do; as well as its ok for YOU to tell me what to do. Its nonsensical...its completely arbitray...its selfish....


Part of the mind-fudge going on the either inadvertant or purposeful flip ( I'm still unsure if you're doing it on purpose or not) that both of you are constantly making from considering ONE...a human being into equating that into the realm of a corporate entity and/or business owner AND entity as "one" with all the same rights as a human being-- an act that while on its face is acceptable belies the falsehood of complete accountability......

Talk to me of "Heritage laws" and corporations and/or businessess. Talk to me of estate taxes, capital gains taxes of an individual versus that of a corporation (either for profit or not for profit...your choise) and there is certainly NO similarity there. That is where the seeemingly similar falsehood of one human equating to one corporation AS human falls flat. They are NOT equal...not in the eyes of men, not in the eyes of the law- criminal or civil.

So lets choose a path gents... Shall we? Corporations or businesses as people or persons is a sham. Lets consider talking directly to the point of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN rights, natural rights, personal freedoms....etc.

And E~
As an employee, you become MY liability. If you go out and do something on the clock, working for me, I can get sued. THAT gives me the right to say what happens

So too can the employee be sued by both the employer AND the original complaintent. What you are failing to see is the moment I work for you then YOU as my emploer also become MY LIABILITY....... Case in point, to prove a point-- those WORKING for Enron... you remember "Those *guys*":rolleyes: Yeah.... I think you've forgotton an employee has MUCH at stake (UN arguably a little less than the employER) from personal fortune to personal freedom (ie sitting in jail for following corp. orders).

I forsake Godwin's law and mention in passing that the argument didn't work in ANY war that "I was just following orders". You as my boss & your logic would dictate that it WOULD..... that you tell me to this and that; that by me laying down alllllllllllllllllllllll my personal responsibilites and freedoms by walking in the door and working for you equates to either slavery and/or servitude with the promise of some protection. I'd bet a BIG Glass of Horse poo that the very same bosses (you...NOT in the personal sense) would be the first to bail out and shuck the very responsibilty that you had others lay down by entering into your establishment.

Gents. I implore you...reconsider! If you haven't noticed no one is coming to your side...nor your defense of the illogical. I DONT say that to be either mean or spitefull; just imploring you to notice the hole you are digging is getting deep...very deep. Zumbo was adament about his statements too-- but he showed his true colors and the ilk from wince he came. I am EXCEPTIONALLY FEARFULL that we have two died in the wool freedom lovers that DO believe in freedom but have been........ I dunno......misled by someone...and that your statements WILL BE much taken outta context!!!!!! I stop short of "True colors" statements but I think some are reaching thier own conlcusions....and I REALLY wanna believe that you two ARE proponents of freedom and against the anti-gun crowd--unfortunately your statements are feeding the fodder and ammuntion to the enemy......... Rethink yor postions PLEASE!

Scarecrow Repair
09-27-2007, 10:01 PM
The only contentious part therein is that you say that "it" limits ONLY the government- that is a falsity on its face; the natural rights (presumably you're including the bill of rights...which is NOT all one's natural rights) guraneenteed by the the BOR et. al. is an acceptance of the rights owned by all and the rights owned by the one. But you make a mid-thought & mid sentence flip to say that a government cannot, while a person or persons CAN violate anothers freedoms UNfettered...which is beyond absurd. The govenrment cant punch you in the head but I am not the government so therefore I CAN punch you in the head........ Doesn't fly; not by a long, short or medium shot- its dead on arrival.

I wish I could say it as well. I can be just as long winded :-) but the words aren't nearly as well put together.

I may have to bow out of this - as soon as I think of a response, I find metalhead has beat me to the punch!

It is so fundamental that all the other human rights beat property rights. Property rights are just one of many human rights. I can't see how anyone could think hiring someone gives them any control over human rights, let alone thinking property rights trump the other human rights. That's slavery, possibly the worst possible abuse of human rights, and all in the name of property rights.

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 10:12 PM
Aw see scarecrow- I think we're envious of each other. I long for brevity & whenever I get close- people either get mad or mistake what I'm trying to say. I MUCh prefer the short and sweet like yours.

Scarecrow Repair
09-28-2007, 6:40 AM
I MUCh prefer the short and sweet like yours.

I ought to frame that -- I don't think anyone has ever said my ramblings were short :-)

Here's a thought experiment. Peter Progun works for Adam Antigun. Peter has the "Happiness is a belt fed weapon" bumper sticker on his truck. It is his own truck, used for commuting, maybe the occasional parts run, but not a company truck.

If employer property rights trumped employee personal rights, Adam could tell Peter to take the bumper sticker off during work hours.

Suppose a bunch of Adam's friends cause such a stink about that bumper sticker by picketing, sit-ins, disrupting traffic, and general rowdiness that the police arrest Peter for disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.

If employer property rights trumped employee personal rights, Adam could tell Peter to testify against himself and confess to the charges, to not insist on his right of habeas corpus, and to not insist on his right to a jury trial.

But if Adam can't tell Peter to take off the bumper sticker or give up his other rights, why should he be able to tell Peter to give up his CCW rights? That would imply the second amendment is worth less than the others.

bulgron
09-28-2007, 7:50 AM
But if Adam can't tell Peter to take off the bumper sticker or give up his other rights, why should he be able to tell Peter to give up his CCW rights? That would imply the second amendment is worth less than the others.

First, plenty of people think that the 2A isn't worth spit.

Secondly, a case almost like what you describe popped up in the last presidential election. There was a woman who was fired for having a John Kerry bumper sticker on her personal vehicle (that was not used for company business). At the time a lot of liberals were outraged and a lot of conservatives couldn't figure out what the fuss was all about.

See this Slate article for some of the details:

http://slate.com/id/2106714/

Business owners keep getting away with this kind of thing. I don't believe that means they have a right to do so, but rather that the courts and the legislatures lean heavily in their favor, so they have the brute force ability to abridge a worker's rights.

Consider that in a lot of shall issue CCW states, businesses have the legal ability to order their workers to NOT keep firearms in their personal vehicles when parked on company property. Is this a right? Apparently not, because from time to time I hear about states changing the law to protect a worker's ability to keep a firearm in their vehicle, even when that vehicle is parked on their employer's property.

Too often employers want things all their own way. They want their rights at all times, but they also want to completely control their employees, regardless of what that might mean for an employee's rights, health or safety. In order to get away with this, employers jump through some mightily strained logic and philosophy hoops. But, really, at the end of the day what's the difference between:

1. The State: You can't carry a weapon because we don't trust you, and we have the legal ability to get away with disarming you. By the way, we have no intention of actually protecting you.
2. The Employer: You can't carry a weapon because we don't trust you, and we have the legal ability to get away with disarming you. By the way, we have no intention of actually protecting you.

The employer says, "Well, nothing forces that guy to work for me." But should we be any less outraged by that statement than we are by various sheriffs saying that if someone wants a CCW, they can just move to Nevada?

In both cases, the desire to disarm a person stems from the exact same authoritarian impulse to control another human being. It is the moral equivalent of strong-arming another person into behaving the way that you want them to behave. The only real difference is, in one case there's a piece of paper that says "this shall not be in done" while in the other case no such piece of paper exists and so, predictably, the authoritarian runs roughshod over the people in his power.

As a society, we have a long way to go before we've truly protected the people's right. For now, the struggle is with the state. If we ever win that fight, we can join the rest of the country which continues to struggle with the overbearing behavior of business.

It never ends, does it?

metalhead357
09-28-2007, 4:58 PM
Nicely said too:)

I forgot about the bumper sticker and quite litterally either didn't know it was political in nature or read right by it:mad: What it brought to mind was the 90's work place attitude and PC BS that sprung up...but the relevant part(s) were Employers SAID people cant keep Nudie Posters and Pics inside of businesses...what turned out to be thr truer truth was that emploeyers could say that employees couldn't keep nudies either in common areas or in areas that were accessable to the public where a minor might see it..................

Quite a diff between NO & NOT EVER versus Ummmmm, Keep it outta sight Ok?

Quite a difference between Not allowing something and curtailing something.......