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

[kallend 2,027]

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?

Yes and yes. Read the fine print.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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.

On this one, you're wrong - arms are weapons suitable to an individual soldier, we don' t have nuclear grenades yet. Under the second, we should be able to carry the same weapons that our soldiers carry into the field, from the 9mm to the M203.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed, yes and yes. Their (the airline's) property, their rules. If they want to exclude red-headed, left handed men from their planes, they can...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

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.

On this one, you're wrong - arms are weapons suitable to an individual soldier, we don' t have nuclear grenades yet. Under the second, we should be able to carry the same weapons that our soldiers carry into the field, from the 9mm to the M203.

Funny, I could have sworn that the SALT and START talks were about nukes.

...

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

[jdhill 0]

Quote

If they want to exclude red-headed, left handed men from their planes, they can...

I think they would have more of a problem with this, as it is a physical characteristic that a person has little control over, and they may run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. On the other hand, wearing an offensive T-shirt is a behavior, which they would within their rights to regulate.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Funny, I could have sworn that the SALT talks were about nukes.

SALT has nothing to do with the Constitutional interpretation of "Arms"... The SC, in US v Miller, (1939) surmised that Arms referred to the weapons and individual would be expected to bring if the militia were called up, basically an infantryman's weapon current to the time.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

On this one, you're wrong - arms are weapons suitable to an individual soldier, we don' t have nuclear grenades yet. Under the second, we should be able to carry the same weapons that our soldiers carry into the field, from the 9mm to the M203.

Look, I understand that. And I even agree. I was arguing devil's advocate position against a simple following of the ONLY the wording of it. The only reason I was arguing for arms was because, by the Words of the 2nd, AND ONLY THE WORDS, Arms is not defined. Luckily, the supreme court decided that a clarification was needed. The 2nd does not say, "the Arms of a well-armed militia" (if it did no one could have a gun unless they were a member of a militia). It say that in order to maintain a militia, citizens have must have arms. But it does not define WHAT weapons compromise a militia on its own.

For sure, the writers of the amendment would understood that a militia probably would not carry around nuclear weapons (if they had them in the day) or other large scale devices. However, they did not define it WITHIN the amendment; they did not specifically define what the arms of a militia were (probably assumed people would understand what a militia is comprise of without having to define its wepaons) ....which is what the argument is about -- the rules acording the amendment and only the amendment.

So in summation, we are in agreement (again...jesus, Speakers Corner is really crazy these days..just take a look at the Christian thread). The SC ruled that a militia cannot have nukes. But if one goes JUST by the words, there is nothing saying they cannot as what weapons a militia can have is not DIRECTLY defined. Or that the admendment applies ONLY to government infringment on the private citizen.

Which goes to my point of understanding the CONTEXT of the admendment in the first place instead of trying to apply them without understanding the thought and reason behind the Bill of Rights.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

On this one, you're wrong - arms are weapons suitable to an individual soldier, we don' t have nuclear grenades yet. Under the second, we should be able to carry the same weapons that our soldiers carry into the field, from the 9mm to the M203.

Look, I understand that. And I even agree. I was arguing devil's advocate position against a simple following of the ONLY the wording of it. The only reason I was arguing for arms was because, by the Words of the 2nd, AND ONLY THE WORDS, Arms is not defined. Luckily, the supreme court decided that a clarification was needed. The 2nd does not say, "the Arms of a well-armed militia" (if it did no one could have a gun unless they were a member of a militia). It say that in order to maintain a militia, citizens have must have arms. But it does not define WHAT weapons compromise a militia on its own.

For sure, the writers of the amendment would understood that a militia probably would not carry around nuclear weapons (if they had them in the day) or other large scale devices. However, they did not define it WITHIN the amendment; they did not specifically define what the arms of a militia were (probably assumed people would understand what a militia is comprise of without having to define its wepaons) ....which is what the argument is about -- the rules acording the amendment and only the amendment.

So in summation, we are in agreement (again...jesus, Speakers Corner is really crazy these days..just take a look at the Christian thread). The SC ruled that a militia cannot have nukes. But if one goes JUST by the words, there is nothing saying they cannot as what weapons a militia can have is not DIRECTLY defined. Or that the admendment applies ONLY to government infringment on the private citizen.

Which goes to my point of understanding the CONTEXT of the admendment in the first place instead of trying to apply them without understanding the thought and reason behind the Bill of Rights.

RPGs are fine militia weapons, as we see in any number of troublespots.

...

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I could have sworn that the SALT and START talks were about nukes.

You know how some people like to throw out that "Godwin's Law" thing, which claims that when someone references Hitler in an argument, then the other side automatically wins?

Well, I think there ought to be an equivalent for gun debates. The first person to mention "nukes" in a gun debate, loses.

A nuke is not a gun. No one is claiming a right to keep a nuke in their home, or carry it in their pocket. Anyone who throws this into the debate is off the deep end, and wasting everyone's time.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I could have sworn that the SALT and START talks were about nukes.

You know how some people like to throw out that "Godwin's Law" thing, which claims that when someone references Hitler in an argument, then the other side automatically wins?

Well, I think there ought to be an equivalent for gun debates. The first person to mention "nukes" in a gun debate, loses.

A nuke is not a gun. No one is claiming a right to keep a nuke in their home, or carry it in their pocket. Anyone who throws this into the debate is off the deep end, and wasting everyone's time.

You're missing the point again, John. If strategic nuclear missiles are "arms" then "arms" cannot be restricted to the things footsoldiers can carry. I've yet to see an infantryman carrying a Trident or Minuteman III.

...

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If strategic nuclear missiles are "arms" then "arms" cannot be restricted to the things footsoldiers can carry. I've yet to see an infantryman carrying a Trident or Minuteman III.

A nuke is not a gun (an "arm" as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment). No one is claiming a right to keep a nuke in their home, or carry it around in public in their pocket. Anyone who throws this into the debate is off the deep end, and wasting everyone's time.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

If strategic nuclear missiles are "arms" then "arms" cannot be restricted to the things footsoldiers can carry. I've yet to see an infantryman carrying a Trident or Minuteman III.

A nuke is not a gun (an "arm" as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment). No one is claiming a right to keep a nuke in their home, or carry it around in public in their pocket. Anyone who throws this into the debate is off the deep end, and wasting everyone's time.

The US Government signed and ratified treaties (which therefore become law of the land) in which "arms" include nuclear weapons. So why try to argue otherwise?

...

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

[billvon 2,995]

>A nuke is not a gun (an "arm" as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment) . . .

So would it be fair to say that everyone in the US has the right to bear arms, but "arms" does not equal "any weapon?"

[mnealtx 0]

For purposes of discussion, the 'arms' mentioned would be small arms...suitable to carry by individual soldiers, not squad/company/platoon/division level weapons. Personal arms, if you will.

The comparison to nuclear weapons is deliberately obtuse. That would be akin to telling a Revolutionary War soldier to sling a cannon over their shoulder.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

For purposes of discussion, the 'arms' mentioned would be small arms...suitable to carry by individual soldiers, not squad/company/platoon/division level weapons. Personal arms, if you will.

The comparison to nuclear weapons is deliberately obtuse. That would be akin to telling a Revolutionary War soldier to sling a cannon over their shoulder.

A militiaman can easily sling an RPG launcher over his shoulder.

...

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

[jdhill 0]

Quote

A militiaman can easily sling an RPG launcher over his shoulder.

Yes, but in military terms it is a crew served weapon...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

For purposes of discussion, the 'arms' mentioned would be small arms...suitable to carry by individual soldiers, not squad/company/platoon/division level weapons. Personal arms, if you will.

The comparison to nuclear weapons is deliberately obtuse. That would be akin to telling a Revolutionary War soldier to sling a cannon over their shoulder.

A militiaman can easily sling an RPG launcher over his shoulder.

Yes, they could...which still does not negate my earlier point. An RPG is meant as an anti-armor weapon, not an antipersonnel weapon.

And yes, I realize that infantrymen can and do carry anti armor weapons, but not as their primary weapon, which is what we're talking about. A Dragon anti-tank gunner has his missiles...but he still carries a rifle.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For purposes of discussion, the 'arms' mentioned would be small arms...suitable to carry by individual soldiers, not squad/company/platoon/division level weapons. Personal arms, if you will.

The comparison to nuclear weapons is deliberately obtuse. That would be akin to telling a Revolutionary War soldier to sling a cannon over their shoulder.

A militiaman can easily sling an RPG launcher over his shoulder.

Yes, they could...which still does not negate my earlier point. An RPG is meant as an anti-armor weapon, not an antipersonnel weapon.

And yes, I realize that infantrymen can and do carry anti armor weapons, but not as their primary weapon, which is what we're talking about. A Dragon anti-tank gunner has his missiles...but he still carries a rifle.

I think you are making an unecessarily narrow interpretation. What is the point of a militia that has arbitrary restrictions on the weapons it can use. Do you think Somali, Iraqi or Afghan militias won't have and use RPGs, mortars or hand grenades just for some arbitrary reason?

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

A militiaman can easily sling an RPG launcher over his shoulder.

Yes, but in military terms it is a crew served weapon...

J

Well, I'm glad we've established that "arms" aren't just restricted to guns.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing to prevent the militia forming crews.

If you want a well regulated and effective militia, you surely are going about it the wrong way if you never train as a militia and refuse to have certain weapons because they hadn't been invented 225 years ago.

...

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

[jdhill 0]

But the courts sole ruling that atempts to define "arms" says they are weapons that a militiaman would be expected to bring on his own, a personal weapon curent to the times, not a crew served one... a knife, pistol, rifle (even an automatic one with a short barrel), a shotgun (even a short barrelled one), even a SAW are all personal weapons that an infantryman carry as personal weapons and would under the US v Miller definition be an "arm" in relation to the 2nd.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

But the courts sole ruling that atempts to define "arms" says they are weapons that a militiaman would be expected to bring on his own, a personal weapon curent to the times, not a crew served one... a knife, pistol, rifle (even an automatic one with a short barrel), a shotgun (even a short barrelled one), even a SAW are all personal weapons that an infantryman carry as personal weapons and would under the US v Miller definition be an "arm" in relation to the 2nd.

J

This whole line of conversation further proves my point: The Bill of Rights needs to be taken in context. A strict interpretation using ONLY the words to make your rules fails the spirit and purpose of their creation.

Thanks everyone.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

But the courts sole ruling that atempts to define "arms" says they are weapons that a militiaman would be expected to bring on his own, a personal weapon curent to the times, not a crew served one... a knife, pistol, rifle (even an automatic one with a short barrel), a shotgun (even a short barrelled one), even a SAW are all personal weapons that an infantryman carry as personal weapons and would under the US v Miller definition be an "arm" in relation to the 2nd.

J

This whole line of conversation further proves my point: The Bill of Rights needs to be taken in context. A strict interpretation using ONLY the words to make your rules fails the spirit and purpose of their creation.

Thanks everyone.

You're welcome. Bringing clarity to issues is my mission.

...

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

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights, though. Of course, they've been doing that for decades, so what can you expect?

How many constitutional rights should we give up when we go to work? Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? We're talking about the Federal Government protecting personal rights, not abolishing property rights.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights, though. Of course, they've been doing that for decades, so what can you expect?

How many constitutional rights should we give up when we go to work? Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? We're talking about the Federal Government protecting personal rights, not abolishing property rights.

Being able to own and keep a gun is a constutional right. Being able to bring it onto any private property you wish is not. A company making a rule about no guns is NOT the GOVERNMENT making a rule about no guns. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect from government infringement, not private infringement (see most of my latest posts in this thread for sources -- including the government's own text from their immigration site)

Therefore, if they do not make a law requiring companies to allow guns even if they don't want them, then nobody's rights are violated while property rights are kept from being further eroded.

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

[billvon 2,995]

>How many constitutional rights should we give up when we go to work?

Zero! You are ALWAYS free to walk out the door and do whatever you want. You do NOT have the right to get paid to do whatever you want though.

>We're talking about the Federal Government protecting personal rights,
> not abolishing property rights.

Sounds like you might want the federal government to come into your small business and tell you what you have to put up with. "You can't fire Martha because she just stands around yakking all day - she's exercising her right to free speech! And since Dave spends his day making little religious statues instead of answering the phones, you have to give him a raise. He has a right to express his religion."