Why carry should be allowed in the work place

[amlevin]

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.

Maybe when Bellingham becomes a major financial center for the West Coast

As it is they just provide training for protesters at Fairhaven College.

 

[Metalhead47]

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.

Now see? Once again you're stepping into libertarian lala-land (don't take that personal ). If Ron Paul became president (fat chance, but still FAR preferable to the alternative), yes he would do ALOT of good, but not overnight. Remember, the President really doesn't have much power, it's the congress that wields power in our republic, and even if Tea party-backed candidates took the Senate and made even greater gains in the House, they would still only be able to do so much in four or eight years. Mostly because alot of it would end up before that SCOTUS you mentioned, which also isn't going to start doing it job right overnight just cuz you & I and the rest of the wingnuts think they should. The (peaceful) fight to restore the Constitution is going to be a long, slow one, just as it was for the statists to pull it down in the first place.

Who IS supporting and feeding those protesters????

Why, the commie left of course. Was just reading an article on this, they're being propped up by all sorts of left wing and "pro-labor" outfits... just turns my stomach to think some of my union dues are probably ending up out there. But to address SVG's comment, the rich-hating left in this country is actually pretty darn rich, they could prop up those "protesters" for a long time. And if we reach the point, either through legislation or plain lack of money, that Greece is in right now, if those protesters are still out on the streets don't put it past them to start looting for food either. And in big cities like NY or Chicago, where property owners are prohibited from defending themselves, a hungry rioting mob can do alot of damage. Heck even in Seattle where you can, you've only got so many bullets before mob overtakes you...


Has anyone else noticed that any time the Right or Tea Party protests, even when half of them are armed, there's never even a hint of violence and they clean the place up afterwards, but whenever the left stages a protest a riot inevitably breaks out, store windows get smashed, cars get burnt, and even if they don't they still leave a huge mess behind?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Now see? Once again you're stepping into libertarian lala-land (don't take that personal ). If Ron Paul became president (fat chance, but still FAR preferable to the alternative), yes he would do ALOT of good, but not overnight. Remember, the President really doesn't have much power, it's the congress that wields power in our republic, and even if Tea party-backed candidates took the Senate and made even greater gains in the House, they would still only be able to do so much in four or eight years. Mostly because alot of it would end up before that SCOTUS you mentioned, which also isn't going to start doing it job right overnight just cuz you & I and the rest of the wingnuts think they should. The (peaceful) fight to restore the Constitution is going to be a long, slow one, just as it was for the statists to pull it down in the first place.

Nothing taken personal, I have never seen you use ad hominem and appreciate that.

It might be lala land to some, but he is the only one getting my vote, all the others are statist/socialist.

He probably won't win but he has inspired and woken up huge amounts of people who are taking an interest in their natural rights and liberty. Me being one, I will never voted in my life but will for RP.

I also foresee a new generation of politicians coming soon that will hold his same constitutional viewpoints and maybe they will get elected and won't believe in incrimentalism either.

I think we agree more than disagree just differ on some minor points. Liked some of your posts in the general and social lounge lately, have you been reading Judge Napolitano? If not I think you would like him, he shares a similar religious background if that interests you.

 

[Metalhead47]

Nothing taken personal, I have never seen you use ad hominem and appreciate that.

It might be lala land to some, but he is the only one getting my vote, all the others are statist/socialist.

He probably won't win but he has inspired and woken up huge amounts of people who are taking an interest in their natural rights and liberty. Me being one, I will never voted in my life but will for RP.

I also foresee a new generation of politicians coming soon that will hold his same constitutional viewpoints and maybe they will get elected and won't believe in incrimentalism either.

I think we agree more than disagree just differ on some minor points. Liked some of your posts in the general and social lounge lately, have you been reading Judge Napolitano? If not I think you would like him, he shares a similar religious background if that interests you.

I do find it interesting that RP has been doing so well in the straw polls lately, not that that really means anything. I won't be voting for him in the primary, but if by some stroke he did end up the republican candidate I sure wouldn't think twice about voting for him in the general. I can get behind him near 100% on domestic issues, it's foreign policy where he looses me.

I do hope you're right about the next generation of politicians, but I still see little possibility for peaceful dramatic change. I see the current situation as far beyond what the founders were railing against just prior to the first revolution. They got their panties in a bunch over a lil ol' tax on tea while we suffer with an income tax, gun restrictions, wealth redistribution, etc etc. The founders went to war over tea, I don't think we're going to get out from under this tyranny without alot of time, or alot of blood.

Actually I've just been reading alot of OCOD lately . Don't have much time for reading anymore, but I do have plenty of time for thinking, and many folks on here make a whole heckuvalotta sense.

And then there's Dreamer....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I do find it interesting that RP has been doing so well in the straw polls lately, not that that really means anything. I won't be voting for him in the primary, but if by some stroke he did end up the republican candidate I sure wouldn't think twice about voting for him in the general. I can get behind him near 100% on domestic issues, it's foreign policy where he looses me.

I do hope you're right about the next generation of politicians, but I still see little possibility for peaceful dramatic change. I see the current situation as far beyond what the founders were railing against just prior to the first revolution. They got their panties in a bunch over a lil ol' tax on tea while we suffer with an income tax, gun restrictions, wealth redistribution, etc etc. The founders went to war over tea, I don't think we're going to get out from under this tyranny without alot of time, or alot of blood.

Actually I've just been reading alot of OCOD lately . Don't have much time for reading anymore, but I do have plenty of time for thinking, and many folks on here make a whole heckuvalotta sense.

And then there's Dreamer....

No I agree that it probably won't change without violence, I am just hoping and know that it can happen if the right people got in.

Good ol' Dreamer I like his posts I am not much of for conspiracy theories, but his posts do make you think. And you know what they say there often is a grain of truth....

Next meet if you are interested I'll loan you some of Napolitano's stuff, they are easy reads. The last few I read on my nook, if you got a nook I can lend them to you, I think, through the wonders of internet. I been very busy too but read whenever I get the chance, waiting for someone at a job site or to sleep or for the wife to do anything if we go anywhere. The nook comes in handy....lol. I still love the feel of paper in my hands though.

 

[DCKilla]

My employer does not allow personally owned firearms on their property. They can search my car to prevent theft of company property. So, I follow their policies to safe guard my employment. Fortunately, my employer has armed security. Unfortunately, the guards didn't know if they carry a Glock 22 or 17 when asked.:shocker::banghead:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I can get behind him near 100% on domestic issues, it's foreign policy where he looses me.

Had to come back to this one you do realize his foreign policy is one in line with the founders and the constitution?

Many will falsely call him an "isolationist" which is the opposite of what he is.

A snippet from George Washington's farewell speech a read I highly recommend.

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

I agree we have become slaves.

 

[Freedom First]

A snippet from George Washington's farewell speech a read I highly recommend.

That is one of my favorite recordings on my ipod. Since I drive many hours a week and with four kids at home I am left with little time for books, so I have been able to use my ipod and librivox.org to load up on the Framers writings and speeches.

Check out Libravox, it's free and very cool. They have everything from the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the Federalist Papers. They are volunteers and it's all material from the public domain so help yourself!

Back to the matter at hand, I have spent the last week thinking about Rights in the workplace. Now I'm not completely sure where I stand today. Sometimes I hate OCDO, as you guys challenge me to think about what I think or where I stand. Jeeze.

If a 911 caller's concern about an OC handgun does not trump your 4A Right to be secure in your person and your 2A Right to provide for your own protection while in public, how does that fit in this situation between employer and employee and their respective Rights?

You are on his property. You are willingly serving him in an agreed upon capacity. You accept money in exchange for your time while serving him based on an agreed upon rate and schedule. You can leave whenever you desire. And he says, "Don't bring your firearm to work."

I haven't studied either the statute or case law in this because I don't believe that positive law should ever trump natural law Rights and, in this situation, the conflicting relationship between two people's Rights seems to me to be at the fulcrum of this issue anyways.

Whattayathink?

 

[Metalhead47]

You are on his property. You are willingly serving him in an agreed upon capacity. You accept money in exchange for your time while serving him based on an agreed upon rate and schedule. You can leave whenever you desire. And he says, "Don't bring your firearm to work."

I haven't studied either the statute or case law in this because I don't believe that positive law should ever trump natural law Rights and, in this situation, the conflicting relationship between two people's Rights seems to me to be at the fulcrum of this issue anyways.

Whattayathink?

Let me throw this at ya then: If an employer bans employees from defending themselves, does he then automatically become liable for their safety? I think he does.

Had to come back to this one you do realize his foreign policy is one in line with the founders and the constitution?

Many will falsely call him an "isolationist" which is the opposite of what he is.

A snippet from George Washington's farewell speech a read I highly recommend.



I agree we have become slaves.

Not isolationist, I believe the proper term is "non-interventionist," and that is something where I take issue with him and maybe even GW as well. In my view, no matter how nice we are to everyone else, and no matter how much we mind our own business, someone is always going to hate us and actively seek to do us harm. There's also much to be said about the potential ramifications at home of allowing a form of tyranny to spread abroad that makes our home-grown tyranny pale in comparison. Remember, there is no international government (the UN? Don't make me laugh). There is no "higher authority" on this earth for two nation-states to take disputes before, or for one state to seek the protection/assistance of if threatened by another state. I think that all too often, "minding our own business" does nothing but give the enemy the initiative of when, where, and how the first attack will take place.

 

[Freedom First]

Let me throw this at ya then: If an employer bans employees from defending themselves, does he then automatically become liable for their safety? I think he does.

Yes and no.

Yes, morally speaking, he is apparently assuming upon himself the role of protector of his employees. Whether he does or not is questionable. Would I trust an employer's lowest cost security to get me home each and every day?

No, it is your Right and responsibility to provide for your own protection.

So, when the two are viewed side by side, the more appropriate solution is to take matters into your own hand and provide your own protection. And as a dead guy once said, "...and thus, putting our trust in God and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may." It's totally out of context but it speaks my mind in this. In other words, make a choice and walk it out.

Not isolationist, I believe the proper term is "non-interventionist," and that is something where I take issue with him and maybe even GW as well. In my view, no matter how nice we are to everyone else, and no matter how much we mind our own business, someone is always going to hate us and actively seek to do us harm. There's also much to be said about the potential ramifications at home of allowing a form of tyranny to spread abroad that makes our home-grown tyranny pale in comparison. Remember, there is no international government (the UN? Don't make me laugh). There is no "higher authority" on this earth for two nation-states to take disputes before, or for one state to seek the protection/assistance of if threatened by another state. I think that all too often, "minding our own business" does nothing but give the enemy the initiative of when, where, and how the first attack will take place.

Sorry Metal, your view is not backed by the Framers. They had no intention to take it to a higher authority, unless by those words they meant God. They would shoulder the load themselves and deal with it when the problem arose.

Can we totally withdraw from the world scene? Nope. Can we seriously draw back from the 700+ bases we maintain all across the globe? You bet. And we should. Would we be safe from attack? Nope but we aren't now either. Would we be in a position to launch overnight assaults on any country in the globe? No and yes. Not boots but bombs.

Did Washington invade Canada and sieze the entire country? He had an opportunity in the 1790s while Britain was busy with European wars. Instead he choose to distance us from that conflict and preserve America from another war.

Did we invade and occupy Tripoli when Jefferson faced the pirates in 1801? He attacked and drove them into a state of fear where they chose to quit the field. Some of our enemies would also quit were we to simply get off their land. They wouldn't be friends but they would probably be passive.

Today we, as a nation, seem all too willing to send our own people (not nameless robots but our sons and now even our daughters) off to wars of occupation all over the globe. That is the action of a failing empire, not a functional Republic. I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a role for the Agent of the States. So, in that, I totally agree with RP.

 

[Metalhead47]

FreedomFirst: I'm on an iPhone here so I can't address everything. Yes it is the individuals responsibility to provide for their own protection, but if the employer then forbids them from doing so, does that not in turn make the employer immediately responsible for such? If my employer forbids me from bringing my own lunch to work, for example, is he not then responsible for feeding me, or the consequences if I don't eat?

If my ideals on one subject are different from the founders, then so be it. After all, they were not perfect and did not claim to be, and also lived in a drastically different geopolitical situation.

I do not for one minute believe that our enemies would leave us alone if we jus left "their" land. In their distorted world view, EVERYTHING is their land, and they would only see such action as weakness and appeasement, encouraging them to demand ever more. I also do not see the wars of late as "wars of occupation" as we are trying to leave those lands as quickly as practical.

Could we scale back from some of our bases overseas? probably. Upcoming advances in missile technology could give us the ability to make a precision strike anywhere in the world within two hours. But then we're opening the can o worms about weapons in space. I'll say again, sticking our heads in the sand and leaving the rest of the world alone while a tyranny spreads as long as they don't bother us is only giving them the advantage of when to strike US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom First]

FreedomFirst: I'm on an iPhone here so I can't address everything. Yes it is the individuals responsibility to provide for their own protection, but if the employer then forbids them from doing so, does that not in turn make the employer immediately responsible for such? If my employer forbids me from bringing my own lunch to work, for example, is he not then responsible for feeding me, or the consequences if I don't eat?

Dude! No tapatalk and drivadabus!

If your boss restricted your ability to eat would you stay? Sneak food during the day? Starve?.. No, you wouldn't take that from anyone. Our society has to change. And it will begin with one man making and standing for his choice. Who will it be?

The Framers...lived in a drastically different geopolitical situation.

That is a dangerous statement IMO. Either the world is the same at it's heart or as things change we must discard the old as the new arrives. Solomon said that there was nothing new under the sun. There are evil men today who seek tyranny just as in those days. There are enemies across the globe just as in those days. Must we fight them all? Is it our purpose to defeat ALL evil under the sun? Can we not just defend our homes and families and be at peace?

I do not for one minute believe that our enemies would leave us alone if we jus left "their" land. In their distorted world view, EVERYTHING is their land, and they would only see such action as weakness and appeasement, encouraging them to demand ever more. I also do not see the wars of late as "wars of occupation" as we are trying to leave those lands as quickly as practical.

Must not be practical. Ten years of visiting Afganistan. Still have troops in Europe. And in Korea. And in Cuba. And, and, and... When can we stop? The Romans had troops spread from England to India at one point. How did that work out?

Could we scale back from some of our bases overseas? probably. Upcoming advances in missile technology could give us the ability to make a precision strike anywhere in the world within two hours. But then we're opening the can o worms about weapons in space. I'll say again, sticking our heads in the sand and leaving the rest of the world alone while a tyranny spreads as long as they don't bother us is only giving them the advantage of when to strike US.

Do you not think that someone else will stand up and become the focus of their hatred? Who fights Japan today? They do commerce and little else and very few number them among their enemies. Australia? South Africa? Brazil? Not an empire in sight and no serious external threats.

It's the empires that garner the special honor of being a target. Were we to remove ourselves from that game and allow the world to sort itself out, I see that there would be an excellent chance that those fools in the muslim lands (and elsewhere) would find another foe. Namely other muslims. They hate few others more than other sects. We just happen to be there and they rally AGAINST us. We leave, they will look around for someone else.

We cannot kill 1.6 billion people to end the threat of muslim extremism. We cannot chain those same people. We cannot use words to stop them. We can stop aggrivating them and let them deal with themselves.

Just a thought from under the sand...

 

[Metalhead47]

Dude! No tapatalk and drivadabus!

If your boss restricted your ability to eat would you stay? Sneak food during the day? Starve?.. No, you wouldn't take that from anyone. Our society has to change. And it will begin with one man making and standing for his choice. Who will it be?



That is a dangerous statement IMO. Either the world is the same at it's heart or as things change we must discard the old as the new arrives. Solomon said that there was nothing new under the sun. There are evil men today who seek tyranny just as in those days. There are enemies across the globe just as in those days. Must we fight them all? Is it our purpose to defeat ALL evil under the sun? Can we not just defend our homes and families and be at peace?



Must not be practical. Ten years of visiting Afganistan. Still have troops in Europe. And in Korea. And in Cuba. And, and, and... When can we stop? The Romans had troops spread from England to India at one point. How did that work out?



Do you not think that someone else will stand up and become the focus of their hatred? Who fights Japan today? They do commerce and little else and very few number them among their enemies. Australia? South Africa? Brazil? Not an empire in sight and no serious external threats.

It's the empires that garner the special honor of being a target. Were we to remove ourselves from that game and allow the world to sort itself out, I see that there would be an excellent chance that those fools in the muslim lands (and elsewhere) would find another foe. Namely other muslims. They hate few others more than other sects. We just happen to be there and they rally AGAINST us. We leave, they will look around for someone else.

We cannot kill 1.6 billion people to end the threat of muslim extremism. We cannot chain those same people. We cannot use words to stop them. We can stop aggrivating them and let them deal with themselves.

Just a thought from under the sand...

Good Lord no! I give both my passengers and my ocdo peers the respect of my full and undivided attention... At their prescribed times

Yes I would be inclined to leave, but (going back to my original point), where cAn I go when ALL perspective employers have the same policy? Is it right that I must choose between starving at work or starving at home (for lack of a paycheck)? Yes, it is society that we need to change, but how?

Yes that is a dangerous statement. So is the one about watering the tree of liberty. Both must be used with utmost caution, and you will not heels me use the former beyond this one subsunject.

And when the rest of the world has turned to evil, and then sets it's eyes on us, what then? Out of said perspective time now so I defer to that dead guy who said something about evil triumphing when good men do nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[decklin]

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.

Devin, thank you for the correction. I was going off the info of a buddy of mine from Cali and I guess he forgot to mention that part. As to the photo of the cop flagging himself that was the first thing I noticed! LOL