Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Knowledge of weapons makes you a threat...

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    So I recently got a new job with a rather large corporation, and as I expected, they have a no weapons policy for their employees. Interesting to note is that employees are forbidden from possessing any kind of weapon PERIOD while on company property, even while not on the clock (no open carry while shopping I guess).

    Anyway, under the section describing "dangerous individuals" and "threatening activity", they provided a list of "warning signs" that are supposed to be red flags for a dangerous person. Among the various signs was this:

    Knowledge of and/or access to weapons.

    So apparently because I amknowledgeable about weapons like firearms, swords, and knives (just to name a few), I am considered a dangerous person that should be reported immediately. :? Not to mention the fact that I obviously have immediate access to a whole lot of them.

    Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Unfortunately I can't access corporate policy on my home computer, but I'll try to post the rest of the policy up here when I can.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Company policies like these are much like our laws. They pass so many laws that are so broad they have something to "catch" you with. This kind of policy helps companies in states like MD where it is impossible to fire someone. It just provides another "hook" to go after someone they don't want working there.

    Now, I think it is a stupid rule, but they aren't going to fire someone who is a good worker because they have guns at home...

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Company policies like these are much like our laws. They pass so many laws that are so broad they have something to "catch" you with. This kind of policy helps companies in states like MD where it is impossible to fire someone. It just provides another "hook" to go after someone they don't want working there.

    Now, I think it is a stupid rule, but they aren't going to fire someone who is a good worker because they have guns at home...
    Oh I'm not necessarily concerned that I'm going to get fired for owning guns, BUT it still puts me, and most people, in a category in which we just don't belong. I'm considering using this as a foot hold to start questioning and possibly changing the current policies.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Oh I'm not necessarily concerned that I'm going to get fired for owning guns, BUT it still puts me, and most people, in a category in which we just don't belong. I'm considering using this as a foot hold to start questioning and possibly changing the current policies.
    Good luck! The policies really are stupid when it comes down to it.

    Best of luck

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Huh, I'm glad my office doesn't have that. I just made a coworker nevous by showing off a new holster to a coworker in an adjacent office. Kinda makes me wonder what he would think if he knew I had the gun that fits it in the office as well.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Of course! knowledge and access to weapons makes you dangerous. That's the whole point. A dangerous man can't be forced so easily. He has to be persuaded.

    Its the reason criminals prefer unarmed victims--because they're a lot less dangerous.

    Well (sigh), at least they're bright enough to recognize that bit of truth. (not really)

    On your last day of work, just sidle up to one of the pseudo-sophisticated supervisors and get them to start talking about how dangerous he is. He'll tell you things like, "So and so won't mess with me. He knows better." Etc. Etc. Which is just another version of "I'm dangerous." People know the value of being dangerous. They know what happens if you don't have the capacity to be dangerous. Even if only instinctively. And even if not physically.

    Their real problem is that you are more dangerous than they are. And theydefinitely don't like that.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    So I recently got a new job with a rather large corporation, and as I expected, they have a no weapons policy for their employees. Interesting to note is that employees are forbidden from possessing any kind of weapon PERIOD while on company property, even while not on the clock (no open carry while shopping I guess).

    Anyway, under the section describing "dangerous individuals" and "threatening activity", they provided a list of "warning signs" that are supposed to be red flags for a dangerous person. Among the various signs was this:

    Knowledge of and/or access to weapons.

    So apparently because I amknowledgeable about weapons like firearms, swords, and knives (just to name a few), I am considered a dangerous person that should be reported immediately. :? Not to mention the fact that I obviously have immediate access to a whole lot of them.

    Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Unfortunately I can't access corporate policy on my home computer, but I'll try to post the rest of the policy up here when I can.
    Well of course, they have no say or control over you when you are not on company time, so the idea that "even while not on the clock" just ain't gonna fly. Were that the case, one heck of a lot of people all over the country would be in a heap of trouble.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Well of course, they have no say or control over you when you are not on company time, so the idea that "even while not on the clock" just ain't gonna fly. Were that the case, one heck of a lot of people all over the country would be in a heap of trouble.
    The policy says the employee isn't allowed to have weapons whileon company property, on the clock or not. No, they can't tell me what to do while I'm not at work and not on the clock, but if I decided to wander in their on my day off carrying openly, their policy says they can terminate me.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Well of course, they have no say or control over you when you are not on company time, so the idea that "even while not on the clock" just ain't gonna fly. Were that the case, one heck of a lot of people all over the country would be in a heap of trouble.
    The policy says the employee isn't allowed to have weapons whileon company property, on the clock or not. No, they can't tell me what to do while I'm not at work and not on the clock, but if I decided to wander in their on my day off carrying openly, their policy says they can terminate me.
    That's not unusual. Everyplace I have worked for someone else, if you were there off the clock, most rules still applied except dress codes.

    The handbook warning about dangerous persons sounds pretty silly, but makes as much sense as TSA nearly strip searching 85 year old ladies from Podunk, Iowa to prevent terrorism.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Some of the workplace psychological testing (e.g. the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test or whatever it is) is pretty absurd on its face. I pretty much failed a job interview for failing to answer questions like "Other people see me as a capable leader, true or false?" I answered that I don't presume to know what other people think and that the question is ultimately one that requires me to either be psychic or a narcissist to answer. They didn't like all my qualified responses and wrote me off as a pain in the ass. It was mutual.

    On a more positive note, I got my gun shop job precisely because of my knowledge of and interest in weapons. I had pawned a guitar and went to redeem it, and the guy needed help with his new expanded gun department. Been here a year and a half now, and I don't have to commute an hour each way to kiss corporate ass any more.

    -ljp


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    ...Interesting to note is that employees are forbidden from possessing any kind of weapon PERIOD while on company property, even while not on the clock (no open carry while shopping I guess).

    You guys need to get a clue. The above policy will alwaysprevent someone from shooting up the place.

    Remember, nobody has ever been shot when a business or school has instituted a no gun policy.:quirky
    I can tell you've been Rady8ed, you have a nice glow about you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I'm reminded of an autobiography I read recently - At Stalin's Side - by Valentin Berezhkov. He started off as a lowly tour guide for Intourist (the Soviet state tourist board) and ended up becoming a principal translator for the Soviet heads of state through all the purges and WWII. He ended up with a job at the Kremlin, down the hall from Stalin himself, carrying a pistol without any permit, and without even being a Communist party member initially. So - "no guns" policies have a way of getting circumvented, perhaps even moreso in totalitarian states, but you never know (I know you meant the post sarcastically, but weird things happen)...

    Perhaps weirder yet, Berezhkov survived to tell the story, and just died of natural causes a few years ago as a professor in California.

    -ljp

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I'm reminded of an autobiography I read recently - At Stalin's Side - by Valentin Berezhkov. He started off as a lowly tour guide for Intourist (the Soviet state tourist board) and ended up becoming a principal translator for the Soviet heads of state through all the purges and WWII. He ended up with a job at the Kremlin, down the hall from Stalin himself, carrying a pistol without any permit, and without even being a Communist party member initially. So - "no guns" policies have a way of getting circumvented, perhaps even moreso in totalitarian states, but you never know (I know you meant the post sarcastically, but weird things happen)...

    Perhaps weirder yet, Berezhkov survived to tell the story, and just died of natural causes a few years ago as a professor in California.

    -ljg
    Remember...government clearance. It's what seperates the special people from the common citizen.
    I can tell you've been Rady8ed, you have a nice glow about you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    So I recently got a new job with a rather large corporation, and as I expected, they have a no weapons policy for their employees. Interesting to note is that employees are forbidden from possessing any kind of weapon PERIOD while on company property, even while not on the clock (no open carry while shopping I guess).

    Anyway, under the section describing "dangerous individuals" and "threatening activity", they provided a list of "warning signs" that are supposed to be red flags for a dangerous person. Among the various signs was this:

    Knowledge of and/or access to weapons.

    So apparently because I amknowledgeable about weapons like firearms, swords, and knives (just to name a few), I am considered a dangerous person that should be reported immediately. :? Not to mention the fact that I obviously have immediate access to a whole lot of them.

    Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Unfortunately I can't access corporate policy on my home computer, but I'll try to post the rest of the policy up here when I can.
    That makes the majority of Americans a threat. If I were you, I would quit. I would tell the manager that you own guns and that this part of the employee manual is extremely offensive to you, and you refuse to work for such a discriminating company. At least that is what I would do. You can find another job, but staying at this one just tells them that this kind of discrimination is tollerable.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    DreQo wrote:
    So I recently got a new job with a rather large corporation, and as I expected, they have a no weapons policy for their employees. Interesting to note is that employees are forbidden from possessing any kind of weapon PERIOD while on company property, even while not on the clock (no open carry while shopping I guess).

    Anyway, under the section describing "dangerous individuals" and "threatening activity", they provided a list of "warning signs" that are supposed to be red flags for a dangerous person. Among the various signs was this:

    Knowledge of and/or access to weapons.

    So apparently because I amknowledgeable about weapons like firearms, swords, and knives (just to name a few), I am considered a dangerous person that should be reported immediately. :? Not to mention the fact that I obviously have immediate access to a whole lot of them.

    Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Unfortunately I can't access corporate policy on my home computer, but I'll try to post the rest of the policy up here when I can.
    That makes the majority of Americans a threat. If I were you, I would quit. I would tell the manager that you own guns and that this part of the employee manual is extremely offensive to you, and you refuse to work for such a discriminating company. At least that is what I would do. You can find another job, but staying at this one just tells them that this kind of discrimination is tollerable.
    Your position is admirable, however it's taken me quite a while just to get this job, so I'm sticking with it for the time being. The job market around here is plain old crap. I wont be simply accepting their discrimination, but I'm not just gonna tell them to shove it, either. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm going to start slow and see if I can't actually get something changed.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Speaking of knowledge of weapons and threats...

    Bart tells me and Lisa that his class had a LEO talk to them about gangs, guns, etc. in preparation for the kids to move forward into middle school (God help us!)

    He was told by the LEO that anyone who has a gun and tells you to do something is a bad guy, and a threat. I told Bart that if that were true, both Lisa and myself were bad guys and threatening. And in fact, the LEO herself was a bad guy and threatening. I asked him if he pointed out that fact.

    In his tender young wisdom Bart told me he laughed aloud when she made those statements and said to us that "he'll leave her to figure that out on her own someday".

    :P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •