Be very nice to fellow employees, starting July 1.

[Smiling JOe]

packing heat is not going to work well against tyranny. Look no further than the mess out in TX right now. The Sheriff has a military tank on the scene. Police are not your protection. To think they are, is a false security. I don't pack heat, because I'm not in an environment where I feel that I need that protection. Carrying a loaded gun comes with many responsibilities, and there is no way to put the bullet back in the gun, so I choose not to go that route. Put me in a different environment where I regularly feel threatened, and I might increase my risk tolerance and carry a gun to protect myself, family, friends, neighbors. Some people get a little friskier when they pack heat, but I know many others, myself included, who know the responsibility of carrying, and we would use it as a last resort, not as an intervention in controversial situations.

Nut cases are everywhere. Add the wrong drugs to the mix and you get trouble. (Drugs not necessarily being illegal. Look at some people's reactions to anti-depressants. I've seen it first hand.) A gun can do some major damage in the hands of these people, but they can do as much damage with a 7,000 lbs SUV. I liken it to people being really scared of getting killed by sharks, when they drive on the highway to get to the beach. People have been carrying guns for a long time. If they are not being checked by security, you can bet that those guns are likely in their vehicle when at work. Charlie just makes it legal to do so. That is like the millions of Americans who smoke pot. Having a law making it illegal doesn't stop those people from smoking. Changing the law to make pot smoking legal, will not likely change these people's smoking habits.

 

[scooterbug44]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

Taking guns to work is not defending Man against tyranny, it's manifestation of gun worship.

When I worked at Blue Cross, a man killed his wife in the parking lot one evening. She was one of my co-workers, and she had been given the gun to "protect herself' from him. He didn't show up in the parking lot that night with a gun, but when things didn't go as he'd hoped, a gun happened to be there.

I'm out of rep, but great analogy!

Guns don't make people safer, they increase the potential for violence and death. Instead of passing legislation to make guns more prevalent, they should be passing legislation to limit gun ownership.

I know many wonderful people who own guns for shooting, hunting, etc. They are sane & logical people who do not feel a need to bring their gun to work, into social situations, etc.

Guns can be funn and there are many tasting things you can hunt with them, but safety, responsibility, and prudence need to be mentioned more than the misguided "right to bare arms."

 

[rapunzel]

packing heat is not going to work well against tyranny. Look no further than the mess out in TX right now. The Sheriff has a military tank on the scene. Police are not your protection. To think they are, is a false security.

I disagree. Guns will work against tyranny. The problem for those FDLS members is that the majority of the people don't see the U.S. government as a repressive regime. A small sect of people who want to marry girls within a year of menarche as though they were breeding cattle and not the 13 year old child who should be enjoying eighth grade innocently holding hands with a boy her own age, not having sex with a man her grandmother's age. The majority of people believe the sect is the bigger threat to our social contract, not the government. Therefore, there is no groundswell of support for the FDLS. It's when the government no longer serves the best interest of the majority, and when the tyrrany stomps more down than it lifts up that the armed citizenry would be formidable.

Of course, I agree with you about marijuana. There is no good reason for it to be illegal. The nanny state marijuana laws hurt more people than they protect by creating a distribution network of providers for a relatively harmless illegal drug. They create channels to distribute other, truly sinister drugs into every high school in this country.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Sorry for the bad analogy. I don't agree with 13 year olds being forced to marry a grandpa, likely their very own grandpa. I intended to simply point out the fire-power of having Sheriff's Departments with tanks, and think about the US military arsenal and intelligence, via satellite, infrared, links to every webcam, email, etc. A bunch of guys with 6 shooters cannot stop that. We'd have more success at fighting our gov't by refusing to pay the gov't any taxes. Who would be left to run the gov't if they weren't being paid? Just a thought.

 

[wrobert]

Okay. I am not anti-gun. The right to protect oneself with the latest technology available is a sure sign of a free society. The problem is, unlike days of old, we do not educate people in the proper use and care. My granpappy educated me. And, if you choose to believe her, Hillary's granpappy educated her, of course that is another thread I will jump into later.

The problem with this legislation is I am also very pro property rights. I really believe that the employer should be allowed to impose rules against this if desired.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Do you also believe that an employer should be able to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car? What about the customers' cars? Seems to me that the freaks who would would go postal, don't follow the rules anyway.

 

[wrobert]

Do you also believe that an employer should be able to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car? What about the customers' cars? Seems to me that the freaks who would would go postal, don't follow the rules anyway.

That is what makes this such an interesting issue. I think the owner of the car should be able to do what they want, but someone who owns property or a business can certainly be allowed to attach conditions on people who are going to enter that property. If everything is laid out then people could just choose to go somewhere else.

But in reality, the criminal is not going to obey a sign or a law, so I do not what the effects will be. According to the NWF Daily News we are going to see massive killings and insurance increases. I plan on being in DC the first week of July so maybe I will just read about the carnage.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I haven't read the new Law, but I understood it to state the a person could have a gun in the vehicle while on the premises of one's employer. Carrying the gun inside may be a different issue, but in many states, one's person is seen as an extension of their home, and a police officer cannot search without just cause.

Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone feels the need to pack heat. Those who choose to pack heat are likely already doing so. I, too, don't see how the passage of this law will change the status quo. I'm not suddenly going to start carrying just because I can, just like I won't start smoking pot if they legalize it. People who want to smoke or carry, already do.

 

[Matt J]

SJ here's another way to look at it.

Would you support a law that allowed someone to bring a gun on your property for their personal protection? It's very similar in that an employer generally owns the building/parking lot/parking garage that the employees park in. Why shouldn't they be allowed to tell you what you can/cannot bring onto their property?

 

[Smiling JOe]

I wouldn't be against such law that allows one to bring their gun onto my property for their protection. I don't think it is currently illegal for someone to do so. As I said, people aren't going to change habits and start bringing a gun onto my property, just because a new law is created which gives them the right to do so.

Maybe I should tell the meter reader that he can no longer bring his meter reader worksheet with him, when he comes onto my property. Who knows what might be in those packages in the Fed Ex truck. Better make them stop at the road, eh?