normiss 891 #1 February 15, 2008 bull shit! ALL 50 states allow transportation of firearms, 48 allow weapons in vehicles for personal protection...so what gives here??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 February 15, 2008 Their property, their rules...that said, I'm waiting for the eventuality of a family member suing the school / state for creating an environment where everyone was unarmed and at the mercy of a shooter.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #3 February 15, 2008 Quote bull shit! ALL 50 states allow transportation of firearms, 48 allow weapons in vehicles for personal protection...so what gives here??? Even with a carry permit, schools are off limits. I understand the logistics, but he exercised bad judgement in my opinion. Now if this case was like the ones that involve a factory parking lot, where the individual was fired, I would feel differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #4 February 15, 2008 QuoteTheir property, their rules...that said, I'm waiting for the eventuality of a family member suing the school / state for creating an environment where everyone was unarmed and at the mercy of a shooter. Keeping guns away from nutjobs would be even better.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #5 February 15, 2008 Nothing to indicate this guy was a nut job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteTheir property, their rules...that said, I'm waiting for the eventuality of a family member suing the school / state for creating an environment where everyone was unarmed and at the mercy of a shooter. Keeping guns away from nutjobs would be even better. The current laws already do that. Again (and again and again), if you have a better idea, trot it out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteTheir property, their rules...that said, I'm waiting for the eventuality of a family member suing the school / state for creating an environment where everyone was unarmed and at the mercy of a shooter. Keeping guns away from nutjobs would be even better. Arming and training people who are not "nutjobs" while preventing people who are "nutjobs" from being armed would be even better."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #8 February 15, 2008 Quote bull shit! ALL 50 states allow transportation of firearms, 48 allow weapons in vehicles for personal protection...so what gives here??? Evidently the dude made some threatening remarks to the students. He must have done something to give them cause to search his vehicle. So MAYBE he is a nut. Otherwise he would sue for unlawful search and siezure. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 891 #9 February 15, 2008 eh...thin line between company policly/rules and personal property/slef defense rights. This is becoming more of an issue with more "nut jobs" in the news, and more companies trying to protect themselves from such an occurance. I typically have a weapon in my car or bike. It's there for protection no matter where I am. It is safely and legally stored in my personal property. Personal proerty rights extend to property...not land. They aren't always going to be able to trump my rights with theirs. Wait for the first lawsuit where someone is injured in an assault on their way to/from work where they were unable to defend themselves due to company policy preventing firearms in vehicles whil on company property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #10 February 15, 2008 He 'looks' like a nutter..... Profiling, dont y'love it? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #11 February 15, 2008 Quote Quote bull shit! ALL 50 states allow transportation of firearms, 48 allow weapons in vehicles for personal protection...so what gives here??? Even with a carry permit, schools are off limits. I understand the logistics, but he exercised bad judgement in my opinion. Now if this case was like the ones that involve a factory parking lot, where the individual was fired, I would feel differently. Even factory parking lots are not a good idea. Some years back at Hussmann Refrigeration in St.Louis an incident occurred when an employee, an outraged ex-husband of another employee, killed his ex-wifes boyfriend, another employee in the parking lot early one morning as people were arriving for work. The company never said much about guns in cars, especially during deer season when people would keep their rifle in their car to head straight to the woods after work. That unwritten policy ended after the early morning shooting. They then installed a gaurd shack at the gate and enacted a search policy of vehicles if suspicion warrented a search. You didn't have to allow the search but would be denied entrance if refused to allow. With all of this, the shooter had, most likely, still got the gun on the property anyways. He was, also, one of the most vocal about gun rights in the plant. He was a legal gun owner. One other incident, after the killing, involved a man fired for some reason or another. When he was escorted from the property, he made a statement about having guns and that he pick off anyone leaving the building. The company called the police and several hours later they picked him up as he came back towards the plant. Appearantly he went home and dressed in camo, loaded his car with ammo and rifles to make good on his threat.. He was another legal gun owner and also, one that talked a lot about his gun rights. Obvious, no policy would had kept either of these guys from doing what they planned but, why allow a policy inwhich it makes it just that much easier for someone to get to their gun? True, anyone could just hide a gun and casualy just stroll into the building without any notice but, giving the number of hotheads, to allow people to have weapons at their immediate access could allow an incident to escalate to the point of one person pulling a gun and shoot out of emotion. I would rather that people on the line not be armed. The same with no guns in the parking lot. Had the nutcase in the second incident had his guns on property he may had just walked back into the building and started shooting. A person could argue that if everyone is armed, we are more safe, all day long but, given that the majority of shootings are those done by legal owners, I would feel safer in the persons around me are not armed. We can argue that it is impossible to know if a person is armed are not and that, that person, could be one who goes on a killing spree, therefore, a person needs to be armed, just in case. Sounds like a circle arguement, does it not? On onehand, if you're not armed and someone comes in shooting, you cannot shoot back to protect yourself. On the other, if most are armed, what is to lead me to believe that any one of those armed around me will not go off the deep end and start shooting? You can argue if everyone is armed then the shooter can be dealt. The 180 arguement would be allowing weapons set the stage for the shooting in the first place and back around to the shooter would had brought he gun regardless of policy. No real answer either way. Allow guns, don't allow guns? Shootings will happen either way. The whole issue is a circle arguement with no one answer to which route is best."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 February 15, 2008 QuoteOn the other, if most are armed, what is to lead me to believe that any one of those armed around me will not go off the deep end and start shooting? If that were true, then WHY do these people go to where they have an abundance of guaranteed unarmed victims to do their foul deed?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 February 15, 2008 QuoteArming and training people who are not "nutjobs" while preventing people who are "nutjobs" from being armed would be even better. I'm not arming anyone. However, any non-nutjob should be allowed to arm themselves if they so choose. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #14 February 15, 2008 QuoteNothing to indicate this guy was a nut job. Who said he was? If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #15 February 15, 2008 Quote If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate. In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. In the real world, we know that is not possible, and that we need to allow people to defend themselves against nutjobs."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #16 February 15, 2008 QuotePersonal proerty rights extend to property...not land. They aren't always going to be able to trump my rights with theirs. Ref private property, it's not a question of one person's rights trumping someone elses – you don't have a right to go onto private land in the first place. You are only allowed onto private property with permission of the landowner – they're quite entitled to rules about granting that permission. Their land, their rules. You wanna go onto their land, you follow their rules. If their rules are that you don't bring any toffee with you, you don't bring toffee with you. Don't like their rules, don't go onto their land. No rights are being infringed as you don't have the right to be there in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #17 February 15, 2008 Quoteeh...thin line between company policly/rules and personal property/slef defense rights. This is becoming more of an issue with more "nut jobs" in the news, and more companies trying to protect themselves from such an occurance. I typically have a weapon in my car or bike. It's there for protection no matter where I am. It is safely and legally stored in my personal property. Personal proerty rights extend to property...not land. They aren't always going to be able to trump my rights with theirs. Wait for the first lawsuit where someone is injured in an assault on their way to/from work where they were unable to defend themselves due to company policy preventing firearms in vehicles whil on company property. Well, I work on a military base, have military experience and have had an extensive background investigation and I can't have a gun in my car when I go to work. (I'm not worried about danger here, but some areas I travel on the way home are not good). Who do I sue? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 February 15, 2008 Quote Quote bull shit! ALL 50 states allow transportation of firearms, 48 allow weapons in vehicles for personal protection...so what gives here??? Evidently the dude made some threatening remarks to the students. He must have done something to give them cause to search his vehicle. So MAYBE he is a nut. Otherwise he would sue for unlawful search and siezure. Yeah, he told SOMEBODY he had a gun. In what context was that? It seems obvious that he told an enemy that he had the gun, as well. As far as illegal search, perhaps that's why the DA dropped charges. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuotePersonal proerty rights extend to property...not land. They aren't always going to be able to trump my rights with theirs. Ref private property, it's not a question of one person's rights trumping someone elses – you don't have a right to go onto private land in the first place. You are only allowed onto private property with permission of the landowner – they're quite entitled to rules about granting that permission. Their land, their rules. You wanna go onto their land, you follow their rules. If their rules are that you don't bring any toffee with you, you don't bring toffee with you. Don't like their rules, don't go onto their land. No rights are being infringed as you don't have the right to be there in the first place. this topic has been interesting to me to follow. And I agree with you but, in this same context, how do you explain zoning laws, eminant domain (used for private developement) and people sueing to stop construction of different types of small businesses where the zoning allows it? What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #20 February 15, 2008 >In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine >who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become >a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. >In the real world, we know that is not possible . . . . . . . and thus should not even try? We try to get better, and thus we review gun laws and try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane (i.e. the 'nutjobs'.) At the same time we know that we will never be 100% effective, and thus we have people who _do_ carry guns (or avoid certain areas, or learn karate, or whatever.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #21 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #22 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #23 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dannydan 5 #24 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate. In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. In the real world, we know that is not possible, and that we need to allow people to defend themselves against nutjobs. Not yet, but if a 500+page PATRIOTact written, read and PASSED within 55days is any indication, then I wouldn't say that THE MARK is not too far off in the distance.... DAMN I love this country... "God bless AmeriKa"..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #25 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me. Here is the next heros plan for you then http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #22 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #23 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dannydan 5 #24 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate. In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. In the real world, we know that is not possible, and that we need to allow people to defend themselves against nutjobs. Not yet, but if a 500+page PATRIOTact written, read and PASSED within 55days is any indication, then I wouldn't say that THE MARK is not too far off in the distance.... DAMN I love this country... "God bless AmeriKa"..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #25 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me. Here is the next heros plan for you then http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,146 #23 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dannydan 5 #24 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate. In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. In the real world, we know that is not possible, and that we need to allow people to defend themselves against nutjobs. Not yet, but if a 500+page PATRIOTact written, read and PASSED within 55days is any indication, then I wouldn't say that THE MARK is not too far off in the distance.... DAMN I love this country... "God bless AmeriKa"..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #25 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me. Here is the next heros plan for you then http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
dannydan 5 #24 February 16, 2008 Quote Quote If you want to protect schools, colleges, shopping malls, etc., from being shot up by nutjobs, then keep nutjobs and guns separate. In the perfect world we could look into people's minds to determine who was a nutjob, and into the future to determine who would become a nutjob, then stop them from possessing weapons. In the real world, we know that is not possible, and that we need to allow people to defend themselves against nutjobs. Not yet, but if a 500+page PATRIOTact written, read and PASSED within 55days is any indication, then I wouldn't say that THE MARK is not too far off in the distance.... DAMN I love this country... "God bless AmeriKa"..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #25 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** What if the gov told you you have to let a CCW permited person carry on your propert if you allow them there? (just looking for opinions) You still have the option of refusing to allow them there. and if you have a business? Remember that the gov is telling you to ban smoking on your private property I already banned smoking on my private property, didn't need the govt. to do it for me. Here is the next heros plan for you then http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
