Why carry should be allowed in the work place

In response; the policies and procedures of a private business are confidential.

Metalhead47 said:

Don't you think you're kinda contradicting yourself going on about business-owners' freedom to run their business as they choose, then say they're "forced" to employ "dorks?"

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point, Metal. Forced as in hiring what is available for the $ available for the positions. Minimum wage earners are not generally the cream of the crop of customer service and character. Yes, managers do hire the best they can, but often those are hires are folks who really cannot manage another line of work.

Metalhead47 said:

IF a business won't allow it's employees to carry firearms because they're dorks, why'd they hire them in the first place?

Click to expand...

Hiring dorks is a part of business life. When you hire skilled labor or highly trained and educated staff, you can honestly expect better decision making skills and often character to follow along with the higher caliber of person. So, when you hire someone solely to run a deep fat fryer versus a highly skilled and educated professional, you as a business owner can expect more from them.

Metalhead47 said:

To touch on something else you said, yes in a "perfect" or even just ideal world your assertion might be valid, because there actually would be choice in the work place. Right now, in this world, and especially this are, there ain't none. In another thread a while back, I challenged ANYONE to come back with an employer who affirms the rights of their employees to lawfully carry for self defense, as a matter of official policy, other than employers in the firearms industry. Never did get a response. It's SOP at my employer that merely bringing a weapon onto the property can get you canned, and that's at a union job mind you (despite all their talk about fighting for worker's rights, unions tend to be pretty quiet about their right to self defense. Go figure, but I digress...). And I know for a fact every other transit agency in the region has a similar policy. Talking to one fellow driver, I guess back in the day KC Metro actually DID allow their drivers to carry. Now they can't, and their drivers & passengers routinely get assaulted. Go figure.

My wife's employer, in a completely different industry and work environment, also forbids the mere presence of a weapon on property, even locked in thee different safes in the employee's armored car. Any employer who does not have an official set policy, if ever asked about one, suddenly comes back with the negative, as some folks on here have found out.

So no, there IS no choice in the work place. Anyone who won't work for an employer who forbids carry is going to be looking for a job for an awfully long time, ESPECIALLY in this depression.

Click to expand...

Regarding choice in the workplace, you are missing one part of real Freedom. You ALWAYS have the Right to move on. No one is chaining you to that bus. I am not chained to my employer. You are totally free to move from being an employee to being an owner. Start your own business, make your own rules, hire whoever you want and allow them to do whatever you see fit. That's exercising your Freedom. Don't force another man who has made that tough choice to bend to your wishes using the force of government, just do it yourself. That's taking responsibility for yourself and making your own choices.

I ran my own business for several years at one point and I am looking at doing so again. I needed, for a period of time, a stability of income that I just wasn't getting from my own business so I chose to close it down and work for someone else. Can I freely exercise my Rights while working for Black Box? Nope. Can I leave whenever I choose? Yes. It's my choice and my Right.

Metalhead47 said:

Since the chances of all of us one day waking up to find America has become a grand libertarian utopia overnight are, shall we say, slim, I think laws like the ones in Arizona & Oklahoma that prohibit employers from prohibiting employees from storing their lawfully possessed firearms in personal vehicles on company property, while also exempting that employer from any legal liability, are a step in the right direction. Personally I'd like to see laws prohibiting employers from prohibiting carry its self, while also exempting that employer from any legal liability. An employer should never be responsible for an employee's criminal actions.

Click to expand...

Personally, I try not to turn to government to right every wrong, perceived or otherwise. Adding more laws is not the answer. Making firearms a more normal part of daily life here in America is a good place to start and here you are on OCDO, packing a gun openly in public. That's a good start in my book. No lawyer worth his $250 an hour will back down from a huge lawsuit just because of some law that says he cannot sue. He'll find a way to at least get a large settlement and that's not right, in my mind, to place your employer in that situation.

Thanks for your points and I am enjoying this thread.

Freedom First said:

I think you missed the point, Metal. Forced as in hiring what is available for the $ available for the positions. Minimum wage earners are not generally the cream of the crop of customer service and character. Yes, managers do hire the best they can, but often those are hires are folks who really cannot manage another line of work.



Hiring dorks is a part of business life. When you hire skilled labor or highly trained and educated staff, you can honestly expect better decision making skills and often character to follow along with the higher caliber of person. So, when you hire someone solely to run a deep fat fryer versus a highly skilled and educated professional, you as a business owner can expect more from them.



Regarding choice in the workplace, you are missing one part of real Freedom. You ALWAYS have the Right to move on. No one is chaining you to that bus. I am not chained to my employer. You are totally free to move from being an employee to being an owner. Start your own business, make your own rules, hire whoever you want and allow them to do whatever you see fit. That's exercising your Freedom. Don't force another man who has made that tough choice to bend to your wishes using the force of government, just do it yourself. That's taking responsibility for yourself and making your own choices.

I ran my own business for several years at one point and I am looking at doing so again. I needed, for a period of time, a stability of income that I just wasn't getting from my own business so I chose to close it down and work for someone else. Can I freely exercise my Rights while working for Black Box? Nope. Can I leave whenever I choose? Yes. It's my choice and my Right.



Personally, I try not to turn to government to right every wrong, perceived or otherwise. Adding more laws is not the answer. Making firearms a more normal part of daily life here in America is a good place to start and here you are on OCDO, packing a gun openly in public. That's a good start in my book. No lawyer worth his $250 an hour will back down from a huge lawsuit just because of some law that says he cannot sue. He'll find a way to at least get a large settlement and that's not right, in my mind, to place your employer in that situation.

Thanks for your points and I am enjoying this thread.

Click to expand...

Don't have time for a long post so I'll be brief. You are still implying choice where none exists. In order to have freedom, one must have a legitimate choice. Back in Iraq 'bout 10 years ago, the people had a "choice" when they went to vote. "Saddam" or "Not Saddam." And we all know what happened to the "Not Saddam" crowd there. The workplace is no different here, there IS no choice of alternate employers when they all have the same policies. Start a business? Bro, not everyone is cut out or even capable of something like that. And as you mentioned yourself, it's not exactly a stable source of income. I'm not the "we need more laws" type at all, but here in Reality, we're going to need a few more while others are dismantled. Incrementalism got us to this sorry state, incrementalism is the only peaceful​ way to get us out.

Metalhead47 said:

Incrementalism got us to this sorry state, incrementalism is the only peaceful​ way to get us out.

Click to expand...

And with the "Incrementalists" on the Supreme Court be assured that is the only way we'll get change.

gogodawgs said:

In response; the policies and procedures of a private business are confidential.

Click to expand...

Unless you are a company like Costco. They have people that are more than willing to share policies with Customers. Even non-existent policies.

amlevin said:

And with the "Incrementalists" on the Supreme Court be assured that is the only way we'll get change.

Click to expand...

Yes, and thats probably a good thing. Radical paradigm shifts in society tend to be violent...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dave_pro2a said:

SCOTUS is often wrong. They often make un-Constitutional rulings to push forward an overt political agenda. If the commerce clause doesn't prove that to you, then nothing will. I trust SCOTUS to make lawful decisions as far as I can throw them -- and despite being full of hot air they are collectively very heavy.

Click to expand...

No doubt that SCOTUS can be wrong, but it is the LAW of the land. You cannot on one side of your argument run and seek shelter under the laws that you find favor with only to turn around a disavow laws that don't conform to your definitions of right and wrong. For instance, I believe SCOTUS got the abortion ruling wrong. That in no way means I will bomb abortion clinics, block abortion clinics, etc It is THE LAW OF THE LAND.

If a company provides a place of employment, then by default it is providing a public space. They are inviting members if the public to become employees, working on a public/commercial property, in order to actually make a product or sell a service that enriches the corporation. Yeah, that seems like a public activity to me.

Click to expand...

There is a universal difference between providing services to the public at large to public property to PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is a titanic stretch with no validity.

decklin said:

I just saw this on Q13 Fox. And of course they were quick to say he may be armed with an "assault rifle". I am tired of people over using this word and all for the sake of a scare tactic. I'm sure California will try to ban more weapons even though I'm pretty sure "assault rifles", AR-15's for example, are already illegal in that state. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way I love your signature. George Carlin was one of the best comedians of all time.

Click to expand...

AR-15s are not illegal in California. They are only illegal if they have a pistol grips, ect. here is a site that sells cali legal ARs http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storecategory94.aspx but Long guns are a bit off topic. I was not continuing on long guns to be off topic, but rather to correct you legal perspective

sudden valley gunner said:

Like this officer in Bellingham....

A bit over the top they had there armored vehicles two choppers and militarized police take over an apartment complex all because one suspect was hiding out there.

Click to expand...

Um... am I the only one concerned that this guy has the barrel pointed at his family jewels while he is slapping that magazine in? Forget his uniform someone tell this guy not to point ANY gun even if it is in his possesion at absolutely VITAL parts.

DevinWKuska said:

Um... am I the only one concerned that this guy has the barrel pointed at his family jewels while he is slapping that magazine in? Forget his uniform someone tell this guy not to point ANY gun even if it is in his possesion at absolutely VITAL parts.

Click to expand...

yup. Probably a good thing it is where it is. Maybe that gun will have an ND before his OTHER one does and spare the gene pool from his DNA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DevinWKuska said:

AR-15s are not illegal in California. They are only illegal if they have a pistol grips, ect. here is a site that sells cali legal ARs http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storecategory94.aspx but Long guns are a bit off topic. I was not continuing on long guns to be off topic, but rather to correct you legal perspective




Um... am I the only one concerned that this guy has the barrel pointed at his family jewels while he is slapping that magazine in? Forget his uniform someone tell this guy not to point ANY gun even if it is in his possesion at absolutely VITAL parts.

Click to expand...

Why I posted the pic, he seems to not be handling his weapon right and having a hard time figuring out how to load it.

DevinWKuska said:

Um... am I the only one concerned that this guy has the barrel pointed at his family jewels while he is slapping that magazine in? Forget his uniform someone tell this guy not to point ANY gun even if it is in his possesion at absolutely VITAL parts.

Click to expand...

You gota remember that he's wearing body armor. That makes it OK. It's also important to remember that according to some, only cops should be allowed to possess or carry guns. They're the only ones truly qualified to handle them.

The more I hear that argument the more I get---

Metalhead47 said:

Don't have time for a long post so I'll be brief. You are still implying choice where none exists. In order to have freedom, one must have a legitimate choice. Back in Iraq 'bout 10 years ago, the people had a "choice" when they went to vote. "Saddam" or "Not Saddam." And we all know what happened to the "Not Saddam" crowd there. The workplace is no different here, there IS no choice of alternate employers when they all have the same policies. Start a business? Bro, not everyone is cut out or even capable of something like that. And as you mentioned yourself, it's not exactly a stable source of income. I'm not the "we need more laws" type at all, but here in Reality, we're going to need a few more while others are dismantled. Incrementalism got us to this sorry state, incrementalism is the only peaceful​ way to get us out.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this statement. I don't believe liberty leads to violence, I don't believe the government suddenly doing away with and reversing huge amounts of unconstitutional and anti liberty laws will lead to violence and unrest.

I do agree with you in part that if they don't start rolling back, they will see violence and unrest when people get fed up with tyranny.

E.g. I thought about this the other day when power went out and the lights didn't work at a busy intersection, the drivers citizens immediately adjusted their driving habits looked out for the safety of themselves and other drivers and found an orderly way of traversing that intersection. All without communication even.

In the so called "wild west" "anarchy" actually worked way better than when institutionalized government took over. There was less violence and less death prior to "law and order".

Now you may have a point that the socialist both who go under the names republicans and democrats might cause some unrest, but an armed population would quickly be able to quell that type of unrest.

Jefferson quotes:

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

Click to expand...

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Click to expand...

I like this one, and it shows how we should feel about "laws" that restrict our individual rights.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

I have to disagree with this statement. I don't believe liberty leads to violence, I don't believe the government suddenly doing away with and reversing huge amounts of unconstitutional and anti liberty laws will lead to violence and unrest.

I do agree with you in part that if they don't start rolling back, they will see violence and unrest when people get fed up with tyranny.

E.g. I thought about this the other day when power went out and the lights didn't work at a busy intersection, the drivers citizens immediately adjusted their driving habits looked out for the safety of themselves and other drivers and found an orderly way of traversing that intersection. All without communication even.

In the so called "wild west" "anarchy" actually worked way better than when institutionalized government took over. There was less violence and less death prior to "law and order".

Now you may have a point that the socialist both who go under the names republicans and democrats might cause some unrest, but an armed population would quickly be able to quell that type of unrest.

Click to expand...

I think you've got me backwards here. I didn't mean that the "government suddenly doing away with and reversing huge amounts of unconstitutional and anti liberty laws will lead to violence and unrest," rather, that removal of such laws in such a drastic all-at-once manner could only come after​ violence and unrest. Look at history. The "Arab spring", Bolshevik revolution, French revolution, American revolution, etc, etc. Social paradigm shifts that are both drastic and "overnight," universally occur only with violence. Slow, incremental paradigm changes, whether good or bad, tend to be peaceful. Like that old adage about boiling a frog, you know what I mean?

Just look at our current gov't. Democrat, republican, whatever. Hell just look at those fools "occupying" downtown right now. Do you honestly believe the former group would EVER consider such radical dismantling of their power in such short order? Do you honestly believe the latter group would sit there and take it while their perceived "safety net" is likewise dismantled? Look at all the rioting in Europe, especially Greece & Germany with the "austerity" measures, when one threatens to take away the addict's drug (other people's money).

Imagine if tomorrow the government just disappeared (YAAAAY!). Everyone just gone, no reason, from the President down the local dog catcher, disappeared. Yes, you'd have some banding together of local communities, and plenty of people who could continue to get along. But then you have this other group, a very large group, maybe even a majority of the population, especially in the big cities, made up of both predators and sheep. The sheep are utterly dependent on the farmer for their survival. If the farmer stops bringing the food out every morning, first the sheep will get ornery, then they'll start to die, then they'll break out and run rampant over the land. Survivalist literature calls this the "golden horde." These people had no ability to produce for themselves with government, neither will they without it, and they'll sweep across the land like locusts taking what they can before they simply die out. Then you have the Predators. The Farmer kept them mostly at bay when he was around, 'course they still stole the occasional sheep-- just to keep the sheep further dependent on the farmer-- now the farmer's gone and there's absolutely nothing keeping them from taking what they want by force. Maybe a few of the smarter ones want to keep some sheep alive and set up their own little farms too.
Then there's the rest of us, "ferals" perhaps, who never wanted anything the sheep had or the farmer gave, and never feared the predators since we still had claws. Now we have to keep what we have against both the pathetic scavenging horde and the violent power-seekers.

OK ok enough with the farm analogies. It "worked" in the wild west because that culture grew from the "nothing" that was there when the settlers arrived. To turn a culture that has been bred on reliance on gov't to that level of self-sufficiency will require either slow incremental change, or violent upheaval.

No my friend, we will not one day awaken to some overnight "libertarian utopia." It will take either time, or blood.

Myself, I hope for the former while preparing for the latter.

Metalhead47 said:

It "worked" in the wild west because that culture grew from the "nothing" that was there when the settlers arrived.

Click to expand...

It also worked because far fewer people were involved. Take Denver as an example. In 1858 the population was less than 5,000. One year later it swelled to over 100,000 with the discovery of Gold. With the increased population came more "Government".

amlevin said:

It also worked because far fewer people were involved. Take Denver as an example. In 1858 the population was less than 5,000. One year later it swelled to over 100,000 with the discovery of Gold. With the increased population came more "Government".

Click to expand...

Just proves that where there is money, government will arise to take a giant slice of it.

DevinWKuska said:

Um... am I the only one concerned that this guy has the barrel pointed at his family jewels while he is slapping that magazine in? Forget his uniform someone tell this guy not to point ANY gun even if it is in his possesion at absolutely VITAL parts.

Click to expand...

Sweeping yourself with the muzzle? Bad. That? Someone call CPS, if he has kids they're gonna need help ASAP, if they have genes from THAT moron!

amlevin said:

It also worked because far fewer people were involved. Take Denver as an example. In 1858 the population was less than 5,000. One year later it swelled to over 100,000 with the discovery of Gold. With the increased population came more "Government".

Click to expand...

Your point makes sense on the surface until you look at statistics, but the studies I looked at was after 1858, were masses of people moved out west but before "government was established. The ratios were less without "law and order". Have to remember ratios are different than just numbers although it is often a political trick. E.G. if you look at ratio, cops have an 8-11% collateral damage when using firearms where as citizens have 2%, you'll have cops claim that's 'because we use ours more', missing the whole point of ratio.

http://mises.org/daily/4108/The-Not-So-Wild-Wild-West

Metalhead47 said:

I think you've got me backwards here. I didn't mean that the "government suddenly doing away with and reversing huge amounts of unconstitutional and anti liberty laws will lead to violence and unrest," rather, that removal of such laws in such a drastic all-at-once manner could only come after​ violence and unrest.

Click to expand...

I don't think it has too, is my point. Will it only happen that way probably. History as you pointed out has shown us that those in power do not want to give it up.

If we elect Ron Paul who is not an incrimentalist I believe we will see a huge immediate reduction in executive czars, and agencies. That's why all the other politicians and propaganda machines paint him as a nut. Also if the SCOTUS would start ruling constitutionally you would see immediate drastic changes. We as people would adjust. Also by continually discussing and pointing out liberty vs. Tyranny we can hopefully raise other non incrimentalist who will just plain stop government intrusion.

Don't get me wrong I don't wont government to disappear I believe we need a form of government in line with the original intent of the founders.


Riots and unrest might happen but wouldn't last long, who are going to feed these people? They will soon quit because they will get hungry. Property owners should defend their property but otherwise they should simply be ignored. Like a baby who is just crying for attention.

sudden valley gunner said:

Riots and unrest might happen but wouldn't last long, who are going to feed these people?

Click to expand...

Just like the protests going on now in major cities across the US. Who IS supporting and feeding those protesters????

amlevin said:

Just like the protests going on now in major cities across the US. Who IS supporting and feeding those protesters????

Click to expand...

Maybe many of them are on Welfare or subsidies they would have to go home if they were done away with because they would get hungry.

But those protesters are not affecting me and don't seem to be making a major impact, unless stupid politicians decide to coddle them like a colicky baby.