It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Employers are Infringing on our Rights!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If this thread is anything to go by, background checks are somehow an infringement on our rights. Some people seem to think that if background checks are required to buy a gun at any legitimate seller, their right to bear arms is violated. This is, of course, nonsense. If you are still able to own a gun after your background check then your rights weren't violated at all.

This is nothing more than manufactured outrage because it has to do with Obama, and as we all know Obama can't do anything right even when he does.

I asked a question in the thread I linked to that wasn't answered and I thought deserved its own thread.

According to the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the right to work is a human right. It goes as such:


Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.


Source

The UDHR was a declaration created and drafted by 18 members of the Commision on Human Rights, the United States being one of those members. The declaration was accepted by America so we abide by these rights.

So, if working is a human right, are employers who perform background checks infringing on our right to work? If not, why would required background checks to own a gun be any different? They're both human rights according to America, so why does one get a pass but the other doesn't?

Thanks in advance.

ETA: Just to be clear, I am not against employers performing background checks.

edit on 10/9/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
are you assuming that corporations and companies have to follow the constitution?....good luck with that.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Background check to see if you are eligible to buy a weapon, no problem.


Documenting exactly what I buy is nobody's business.

The danger here is not performing a background check but notating exactly what is bought and then attempting to get in the middle of person to person transfers in order to get a backdoor registration list for later confiscation and prosecution.

And by the way.. hint here... nobody gives a crap if it Obama, Clinton, Biden, Bush, Trump, whoever that does this.


edit on 9-10-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

The same argument can be made for employers. How do we know they're not storing our information for nefarious purposes? Should we boycott employers requiring a background check too?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
But i'd assume you'd support a paedo getting a job in a nursery? theres checks for obvious reasons.....you expect a doctor to actually of done their medical training or the guy putting in some new sockets for you to know which cable is the live etc....working on gas piping with a ciggy in your mouth

edit on 9-10-2015 by Maxatoria because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Comparing the supreme law of the land to a treaty with foreign countries isn't really possible...however I do agree that background checks and credit checks especially on potential employees is over the line. Similarly drug testing is as well...seeing as to how one could smoke before bed to help them sleep but never go to in to work high, yet still be denied or even fired because it shows up in a test that spans 30 days of indiscriminate time.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: infolurker

The same argument can be made for employers. How do we know they're not storing our information for nefarious purposes? Should we boycott employers requiring a background check too?


Sure, right after we get rid of those damned credit scores!

Can challenge the government no fly list.

Etc.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Maxatoria

I'm not against background checks by employers, the title was sarcastic.


I don't want someone who was convicted of shooting another person out of jealousy to own a gun, but as we have it now, they can if they go to aa high volume dealer.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If this thread is anything to go by, background checks are somehow an infringement on our rights. Some people seem to think that if background checks are required to buy a gun at any legitimate seller, their right to bear arms is violated. This is, of course, nonsense. If you are still able to own a gun after your background check then your rights weren't violated at all.

This is nothing more than manufactured outrage because it has to do with Obama, and as we all know Obama can't do anything right even when he does.

I asked a question in the thread I linked to that wasn't answered and I thought deserved its own thread.

According to the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the right to work is a human right. It goes as such:


Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.


Source

The UDHR was a declaration created and drafted by 18 members of the Commision on Human Rights, the United States being one of those members. The declaration was accepted by America so we abide by these rights.

So, if working is a human right, are employers who perform background checks infringing on our right to work? If not, why would required background checks to own a gun be any different? They're both human rights according to America, so why does one get a pass but the other doesn't?

Thanks in advance.

ETA: Just to be clear, I am not against employers performing background checks.


I'm as pro gun as they come but any reasonable owner sees no problem with a background check. After all no one really wants felons having guns but if they don't do a background check, how would they know?

But what most people are against is this common push for more rules and regulation against the legal market , when we have a large competing black market and private sales. I'm all for plugging gaps in the legal market. But what I'm not for is this constant attack with absolutely no thought of plugging the over flow sales in the other two markets. And don't give me the line about we have to go one step at a time. We never here the other two mentioned. Not saying these people are going to the black market, but private sales are common. Honestly, do you people want these people to not have guns or do you want to lock the front door, but leave the Windows and back door open? Sounds like the latter.

Don't waste people's time with the one sided attack.. If we don't have a three prong plan then you want it covered from sight, not fixed. You definately are not looking for a big decline in gun death.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are not guaranteed to have a job. You are guaranteed the right to defend yourself, person and property.

PS "working" is not synonymous with "job." Many people work and make a living who do not have what jobs from other people.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
"Background check" is a big phrase. It can mean a school district checking with the State to see if a prospective teacher has a teaching certificate as claimed. Or it can mean a full-fledged FBI check including interviewing your neighbors and former teachers to check your "character" and suitability for a Secret Clearance.

It's really a matter of degree as to when your "rights" (that you think you have) have been violated.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Guaranteed to defend yourself yes, but to own a gun? Not so much. If you're a felon you can't own one meaning it's not 100% guaranteed just like a job isn't 100% guaranteed.
edit on 10/9/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Credit checks and having to give them your social media passwords are way over the line. Yet we continue to allow them to erode our rights.

We are so afraid of not getting a job that we will allow almost any infringement.

I guess the next move will be re-implementing the casting couch, or allowing some demeaning act, that can be uploaded to YouTube to prove you are a team player.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you're a felon, you've already proven that you do not respect the rights of others.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: infolurker The same argument can be made for employers. How do we know they're not storing our information for nefarious purposes? Should we boycott employers requiring a background check too?

Sure, right after we get rid of those damned credit scores!

Can challenge the government no fly list.

Etc.


Are they even necessary anymore since it looks like we are going to open all borders anyway?

Seems like a ridiculous waste of time and money.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The american dream!



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Actually by using the word arms they left it pretty open to any weapon. It's right there in black ink. Basically saying we the citizens have a right to own and posses the tools with which to defend ourselves from whatever threat be it foreign or domestic. However it's been watered down and eroded in meaning over time to be viewed as a privilege.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




If this thread is anything to go by, background checks are somehow an infringement on our rights. Some people seem to think that if background checks are required to buy a gun at any legitimate seller, their right to bear arms is violated. This is, of course, nonsense. If you are still able to own a gun after your background check then your rights weren't violated at all.


And your still ignoring the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment.

And it was specifically explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your literally trying to compare apples to oranges.

Even the ACLU agrees.

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Maxatoria

I'm not against background checks by employers, the title was sarcastic.


I don't want someone who was convicted of shooting another person out of jealousy to own a gun, but as we have it now, they can if they go to aa high volume dealer.


Even with the most strict background checks and laws it wouldn't stop a criminal from doing what criminals do...breaking the law! Have you any idea how easy it is to get a firearm? With over 310 million firearms in private ownership here in the US and god knows how many in the black market that aren't going to be accounted for, it would be quite easy to buy one or just steal one. I'd rather make it easier for the good guys to have them considering there isn't much we are going to do to stop criminals from getting them.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


The danger here is not performing a background check but notating exactly what is bought and then attempting to get in the middle of person to person transfers in order to get a backdoor registration list for later confiscation and prosecution.


Or because they don't want strawman buyers but ya let's ignore that idea and go right for "they want my gunnnnss!"







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join