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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Since when did the US government not like straw buyers ?

They used a hell of a lot of them during Fast and Furious when they ran guns to Mexico.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Cool and you didn't like that right? The gov that you hate so dearly does it so that make it ok?

Sounds like you want to say that is ok, or it is just a typical off topic red herring.

Ever look into the operations before fast and furious btw?


edit on thFri, 09 Oct 2015 18:36:11 -0500America/Chicago1020151180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Didn't say it made it right.

But i will be damn to give up any more rights to the likes of them.

Especially since they are the biggest criminals running around.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So it was a red herring, figures.

So you should be able to break the law because they do.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Remind me who was the one that brought up straw buyers ?

Again.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I did, and then you brought up fast and furious, try and keep up neo.

I brought it up because someone said the reason the gov wants to middle man the person to person sales it to make some back door regestration. I said it could also be about stopping strawman buyers, which is when you brought up F&F. There is the recap.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80



The case soon grew to over two dozen straw purchasers, the most prolific of which would ultimately buy more than 600 weapons.


en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah someone needs to keep up.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Dude... i agree fast and ferious was wrong but it had ZERO to do with what I said. I said strawmans are bad and that is a big reason why peolle want more regulations on the person to person transfers. To respond to a point about how they only want them to take your guns. So stop with the red herrings and talk about what I am actually saying.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:21 AM
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.


Ever since 911 nearly all Australian employers require a job candidate to have a valid police record check in order to get a job. To get it up and running, jobs involving working with kids was the first cab off the rank. Now it has spread to virtually all employers and all posiitons. Most people do not work with money, kids or the aged or senitive positions so how could it be pertinent to most employers or most employment positions??




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join