Proposed law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Rights extend as far as they can until they interefere with the rights of others.

So, the Constitution only applies in certain situations?

I guess an apartment complex could outlaw guns, or maybe a home owners association?

Would you be OK with that?

I think I am going to come over to your house with a large group of people and stand on your lawn and say bad things about you day and night. Right outside your window

Oh, you would not like that and might call the cops? Or get your gun and tell me to leave. Oh, I am trespassing? But I am exercising my RIGHT to free speech aren't I? Even on private property.

But no, your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion. The ABSOLUTE same should apply to the 2nd and private property.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I think I am going to come over to your house with a large group of people and stand on your lawn and say bad things about you day and night. Right outside your window

Feel free, expect to get arrested or shot.

Quote

But no, your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion. The ABSOLUTE same should apply to the 2nd and private property.

The second does not say anyhting about property rights.

The first says who will not (The Government). The Second simply says that the RIGHT will not be infringed.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>expect to get arrested or shot.

Nope! He HAS A RIGHT! There's a difference . . .

Oh, what the hell. You're smart enough to know that your 'second amendment rights' don't let you carry a gun into the Pentagon or an airliner.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Rights extend as far as they can until they interefere with the rights of others.

So, the Constitution only applies in certain situations?

You already know this to be true. If you want to play some silly devil's advocate position, give us the ground rules and we can play. Otherwise return to the real world, where we also still have to pay income taxes.

You can't incite a panic in a crowded theater as an exercise of your freedom of speech.

You can't lead a jihad of killing abortion doctors as an exercise of your freedom of religion.

And you don't have to allow guests in your house to pray if you don't want to. You can make them leave. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government they created.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

I think I am going to come over to your house with a large group of people and stand on your lawn and say bad things about you day and night. Right outside your window

Feel free, expect to get arrested or shot.

Quote

But no, your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion. The ABSOLUTE same should apply to the 2nd and private property.

The second does not say anyhting about property rights.

The first says who will not (The Government). The Second simply says that the RIGHT will not be infringed.

The 2nd also just says ARMS. So, you wanna go buy a tactical nuke?

definition of arms in case you want to debate that:

arms: # A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

Face it, sometimes your right to bear arms is overruled.

If it is my property and I say no guns, you can comply or get the hell my property.

Oh yeah, once you get that nuke, try taking it onto a military base or an airliner. See what happens to your right to bear Arms then.

Oh and take a look here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

for analysis of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Be sure to read the portion with the heading "Bar to Federal Action" The admendments are the rights not to be imposed upon by the Government. It is not a Bill of Rights between private citizens or entities.

Here is another:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=295

Here is a good quote:
"During the 19th century, the impact of the Bill of Rights was limited. In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only protects individuals from the national, and not the state, governments."

And more

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/BasicGoverningPrinciples/IndividualRights.shtml
http://www.guardster.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=243

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I think I am going to come over to your house with a large group of people and stand on your lawn and say bad things about you day and night. Right outside your window

Feel free, expect to get arrested or shot.

Quote

But no, your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion. The ABSOLUTE same should apply to the 2nd and private property.

The second does not say anyhting about property rights.

The first says who will not (The Government). The Second simply says that the RIGHT will not be infringed.

Try to carry your gun on an airline flight. Please let me know when and where, I'd like to come and watch.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You already know this to be true. If you want to play some silly devil's advocate position, give us the ground rules and we can play. Otherwise return to the real world, where we also still have to pay income taxes.

You are the one that wants to have ground rules other than the Constitution.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Oh, what the hell. You're smart enough to know that your 'second amendment rights' don't let you carry a gun into the Pentagon or an airliner.

See you guys amaze me...You will fight for every right but the second.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You already know this to be true. If you want to play some silly devil's advocate position, give us the ground rules and we can play. Otherwise return to the real world, where we also still have to pay income taxes.

You are the one that wants to have ground rules other than the Constitution.

So...you're not going to acknowledge the obvious limitations I listed? Yelled fire in the theater lately?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, what the hell. You're smart enough to know that your 'second amendment rights' don't let you carry a gun into the Pentagon or an airliner.

See you guys amaze me...You will fight for every right but the second.

So you are saying we SHOULD be able to own nuclear weapons? And be able to take them on an airliner? Or into the Pentagon? A nuclear weapon is an Arm after all. And I have the Right to Bear Arms (not GUNS, ARMS).

Respond to this notion. No reason to avoid it because you choose to apply your own reasoning to the amendment. Why not defend the idea instead of calling people liberal or saying we don't support the 2nd? Tell us WHY you think we should have guns on airliners (that means ANYONE with conceal and carry permits...which encompasses the good AND the bad) instead of calling us names. Or nukes for that matter.

But you are wrong, I don't just hate the 2nd. In fact, I support inciting riots, slander, and exposing classified information if I see it. After all, because the Government cannot impose upon my free speech, I have the right to do all these things, regardless of any agreement I signed.

Keeping telling yourself whatever you like. Its hard to face reality when you want to live in black and white.

To take us back on topic:

Did you even bother to take a look at those links? Probably not. If you had you would realize that the Bill of Rights is to protect form infringement of the GOVERNMENT not infringement by business or other citizen. Could they have worded that better? Yes. Does the HISTORY of the document enforced this idea? Yes it does. Go read some books about it and get back to me.

A rule by a company to not allow guns is NOT the government infringing upon your ability to carry a weapon. It is the company. Not covered by the Bill of Rights. Plain and Simple.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[popsjumper 2]

You guys, you guys....don't you realize that some people are like Texans?

You can tell a Texan a mile away...but get up close and you can't tell them nothing.

A joke, you Texans...just a joke....

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Ron 10]

Quote

Respond to this notion. No reason to avoid it because you choose to apply your own reasoning to the amendment.

YOU are applying your own reasoning to the amendment, not me. It is written quite clearly.

Quote

Keeping telling yourself whatever you like. Its hard to face reality when you want to live in black and white.

And it seems to be easy for you to suggest that something is different just because you wish it.....Thats called Petter Pan syndrome.

Quote

Go read some books about it and get back to me.

I have read books on the subject, but since those books don't agree with you you must think they were wrong.

Case in point: "Could they have worded that better? Yes."

So I see, they worded the Constitution wrong....I guess there is no way YOU just interpreted it wrong?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

The Bill of Rights is a restriction on gov't, not private citizens, that is true...property rights would prevail between citizens. If you say "You can't bring that gun on my property", then I cannot do it, and you would be firmly within your rights to have me removed from your property at that point.

A corporation could make it a condition of employment or a company policy that no weapons are allowed on company property or in the workplace. The only recourse at that point is to park off-site or quit... or carry concealed and be willing to face the consequences if caught.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

The Bill of Rights is a restriction on gov't, not private citizens, that is true...property rights would prevail between citizens. If you say "You can't bring that gun on my property", then I cannot do it, and you would be firmly within your rights to have me removed from your property at that point.

A corporation could make it a condition of employment or a company policy that no weapons are allowed on company property or in the workplace. The only recourse at that point is to park off-site or quit... or carry concealed and be willing to face the consequences if caught.

Holy fucking shit. mnealtx...we agree on something.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Go read some books about it and get back to me.

I have read books on the subject, but since those books don't agree with you you must think they were wrong.

Case in point: "Could they have worded that better? Yes."

So I see, they worded the Constitution wrong....I guess there is no way YOU just interpreted it wrong?

Please point to the books you have read that state the Bill of Rights were NOT to protect only against government infringement (as opposed to infringement by a fellow citizen). And I am talking about books on the Bill of Rights, not Gun advocacy books. The Bill of Rights were created because some people did not trust the government and needed further clarification on what the government could NOT do. But I see you skipped the links I posted (constitution sites, not anti-gun) so why do I bother?

If the Bill of Rights is indeed between citizens, then what I say on my property has no bearing if it violates your rights. And we both know that is untrue.

You still have not answered my question about nuclear weapons.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Please point to the books you have read

Why bother? You wll just claim they meant something else, and didn't write it correctly.....Ya know, just like the founding fathers did with the constitution.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Please point to the books you have read

Why bother? You wll just claim they meant something else, and didn't write it correctly.....Ya know, just like the founding fathers did with the constitution.

Yeah, nice dodge. Oh look pa, a full circle.

You keep avoiding the nuclear weapon thing. Very telling. Its an ARM so why can I not have one? And why can I not take it onto an airliner?

Or the idea that if I say "No guns" on my property, you have to comply. You disagree? You honestly think you can walk onto anyone's property or anywhere with a gun?

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

The preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

Right there. It does not say "to extend public confidence in other citizens". The Bill of Rights is to keep the GOVERNMENT from infringing. It implies that all Rights, whether they say it or not, are protection from the GOVERNMENT.

The Founding Fathers wrote it correctly...when viewed as a whole. Its when people take one or two amendments out of the context that it becomes incorrect. Bu tI guess they figured people would understand the history of its creation and read the whole thing. The preamble clearly states that the bill of Rights is to give confidence to CITIZENS in the GOVERNMENT and that is it.

Oh and for that Preamble go here if you question the authenticity (take a look at the ACTUAL IMAGE of the Bill, the preamble is there):

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

And here is an ARTICLE from that GOVERNMENT site about its origin:

"The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis."

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion.

Okay, here's a news story excerpt that reminded me of this thread:

"A woman was booted off a airline flight for wearing a T-shirt that bore an expletive and images of President Bush... The airline said several passengers complained about the shirt. She and her husband left and took a rental car home. The airline rules allow the airline to deny boarding to any passenger whose clothing is 'lewd, obscene or patently offensive.'"

So, to those of you who are trumpeting the superiority of private property rights: do you agree that the airline had the right to kick this woman off the plane for a T-shirt which offended some passengers? Would you dismiss the lawsuit she plans to file for damages against the airline?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

your property rights and the right to have who you want on them negates my right to say what I want about you on it without repurcussion.

Okay, here's a news story excerpt that reminded me of this thread:

"A woman was booted off a airline flight for wearing a T-shirt that bore an expletive and images of President Bush... The airline said several passengers complained about the shirt. She and her husband left and took a rental car home. The airline rules allow the airline to deny boarding to any passenger whose clothing is 'lewd, obscene or patently offensive.'"

So, to those of you who are trumpeting the superiority of private property rights: do you agree that the airline had the right to kick this woman off the plane for a T-shirt which offended some passengers? Would you dismiss the lawsuit she plans to file for damages against the airline?

If it is their policy to do so and she was given said policy beforehand. yes. Last time I checked a airline was a private business. I agree it is an ABSURD rule, but if they want to have absurd rules, they can.

Do you get angry when you decide to work for a business that makes you wear a suit? You either abide by the rules they set forth or you leave.

Can you go into a Christian church and practice Satinism without being asked to leave?

It all goes back to the Bill of Rights being protection from GOVERNMENT not private entities.

I am not really sure how many more quotes and sources I can find relating that truth. I might as well be throwing them down a hole.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You keep avoiding the nuclear weapon thing. Very telling. Its an ARM so why can I not have one? And why can I not take it onto an airliner?

No, I think that a single person should be allowed to own the weapons the Constitution says they should.

The Second: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

That means that the weapons that a MILITIA would carry.

Militia: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

There is a difference between a Militia member and a the Army.

So while correct on the "Arms" portion of your diatribe you missed the "Militia" part.

Quote

And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

You can only expect the document about how the government will run to consider the government first.

However the BILL OF RIGHTS which was written two years AFTER the Constitution made no seperation on the second. On the other hand it EXPRESSLY mentions the Congress in the 1st.

And by your thinking the 4th would not apply to a single person, only a Government.

Amendment 10 also SPECIFICLY mentions who has what power.

YOU choose to assume that they all apply to only the Government. I choose to only follow what was written....YOU choose to claim they were stupid and wrote it wrong when it does not agree with you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>So, to those of you who are trumpeting the superiority of private
> property rights: do you agree that the airline had the right to kick
> this woman off the plane for a T-shirt which offended some
> passengers?

Yes. It's their airline. They have the right to restrict what travels in their aircraft.

>Would you dismiss the lawsuit she plans to file for damages
>against the airline?

In her case, if I were the judge? It would depend. If she truly wore the shirt and refused to remove or cover it? Then I would dismiss it. If she covered it as requested and they kept harassing her? Then I would allow the case to proceed.

[GTAVercetti 0]

weapons for militia versus weapons for army. It is an ARM. Why could a miltia not possess one? Who ever said a nuke is a type of arms only meant for the military? That is an utterly artibitrary idea. Even you definition of militia does not support the idea that a militia could not possess a nuke. You have to be a professional soldier to use a nuke? Is that in the Arms definition handbook? You are making up your own rules.

It like a fucking brick wall. I give numerous sources from Constitional sites, INCLUDING the actual Preamble (which does not mention rights infringement between private citizens), and a quote FROM a Founding Father, and you give me...your own opinion. They were not stupid. But they also assumed people would take it as a whole, Preamble included. You do not. Go read QUOTES from the Founding Fathers about the purpose of the document. I already gave you one.

Now answer the other question. If you come onto my property with a gun and I say no guns or leave...do you get rid of the gun or leave? Do I have the right to make up the rules about my property or is anyone with a weapon allowed to come onto my property even when I don't want them to?

Oh and the 4th? It protects the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE from search and seizure. I have not a clue how you would get that I would think it does not apply to people.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In her case, if I were the judge? It would depend. If she truly wore the shirt and refused to remove or cover it? Then I would dismiss it. If she covered it as requested and they kept harassing her? Then I would allow the case to proceed.

I'd agree. I think the airline has some requirement to find an acceptable way to service its customer. It doesn't require the customer to be fully happy.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It like a fucking brick wall.

Nice personal attack...Can't fight well, you start attacking.

Have a nice day.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

It like a fucking brick wall.

Nice personal attack...Can't fight well, you have to start attacking.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, that's it. The brick wall is what is between you and actually listening. It called frustation because you REFUSE to even acknowledge the OUTSIDE sources I have given. So saying that no matter what I say or how many sources I give you don't even give them a thought is like a talking to a brick wall is an attack? Riiiiigggghht. What exactly happens when one argues with a brick wall? But it is an easy way for you to avoid my questions.

You say I am a liberal and against guns. I say I am a liberal but not one like you think(old definition) and that I LIKE guns.

You say the Bill of Rights are rights between private citizens. I give you proof and sources that they are between government and the private citizen and you deny it on personal opinion.

I say that ARMS is any type of weapon. You reply that ARMS applies to militia ARMS - as if there is a definition in the Constitution of what type of ARMS militias can and cannot have. Arms are arms. If you are going to stick to a definition, you should actually do it.

It is frustrating to give example after example and source after source and be refuted with opinion or simply disregard.

Here is the last one and I am done. From the Us Immigration site on some the bill of rights. I guess we should tell the government they are telling new immigrants the wrong thing:

Freedom of speech. The government cannot tell people what to say or not say. People can say what they want about public issues without fear of punishment.

• Freedom of religion. The government cannot tell people what place of worship to attend. People can choose to worship—or not worship—as they please.

• Freedom of the press. The government cannot decide what is printed in newspapers or heard on radio and TV.

• Freedom to gather in public places. The government cannot stop people from holding lawful public gatherings for many different purposes.

• Freedom to own firearms. The government cannot prevent people from owning guns.

• Freedom to protest government actions and demand change. The government cannot silence or punish people who challenge government actions they don’t agree with.

Thank you and good day. I am done with you.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.