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.

 

Gun Laws Only Affect the People You Don't Have to Worry About in the First Place

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa The law should stipulate that any organization that establishes a "gun free policy" should then be legally responsible for the protection of all those within the bounds of that zone.


I might be WAY off base here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private venues already responsible for maintaining security regardless of whether or not they are gun free zones?

For example, music venues are responsible for maintaining their own security, and they can be held legally accountable if their bouncers fail to stop drugs from being sold.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: face23785

The opening post described a fearful person, who started carrying.
So some people do carry because they are afraid. I actually think ll people who carry, do so because of a fear in the back of their minds...Not that it's a good or bad thing. But why other than fear would you carry something that eliminates threats from other humans? Some of whom were completely sane when they purchased their weapon.

This area is VERY VERY GRAY....Gun Metal Gray..
There is no answer to the US Civilian arms race, it's too late.


Fear can lead you to make that decision but that doesn't mean you're "living in fear" every time you carry. That's a gun controllers fantasy to make themselves feel better about gun owners. It's like sports fans making # up about the team that whooped their team. "Okay, Brady might have a ton of Superbowl rings but he's probably gay, that makes me feel better."

And your speculation about all people who carry is simply made up. Why don't you analyze what makes you invent things about people you disagree with out of thin air?



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: JIMC5499




Gun Laws Only Affect the People You Don't Have to Worry About in the First Place


Agreed.
And even though gun laws will cut down on events like kids getting guns and accidental shootings by idiots. That is not enough for me to give up my freedoms.

The larger threat are the people that don't follow gun laws.


They actually won't cut down on any of that. Kids getting guns and accidental shootings are the result of people not following laws and procedures that already exist. New laws won't prevent that. For example, "safe storage" laws requiring the guns to be kept in a safe at all times. One of the guns that was used in the Colorado shooting was kept in a safe. The kids found a way to smash their way into it.

Evil people will always find a way to do evil. Do we honestly think those mentally deficient kids in Colorado decided to attack that school, and if they couldn't get their hands on a gun would just change their mind and go on with their lives peacefully? In some twisted leftist fantasy land, maybe, but not in the real world.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Krakatoa The law should stipulate that any organization that establishes a "gun free policy" should then be legally responsible for the protection of all those within the bounds of that zone.


I might be WAY off base here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private venues already responsible for maintaining security regardless of whether or not they are gun free zones?

For example, music venues are responsible for maintaining their own security, and they can be held legally accountable if their bouncers fail to stop drugs from being sold.


The venues aren't required to have armed security. And a lot of times your ticket comes with an agreement that you absolve the organizers of any responsibility for anything that happens to you at the event. Bouncers willfully facilitating drug dealing is an entirely different story. That makes them an accessory to a crime, of course they're not supposed to allow it.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

You are not cowards at all.

You are the sheepdogs, protecting the sheep....



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
A week ago last Friday a woman had her car run off of the road. The driver of the car that did it, got out and shot her, killing her. He then drove off. A few hours later he was found after killing himself. The killer was her ex-boyfriend. She had obtained a Protection from Abuse Order against him. The local media ran the "Evil gun" angle and criticized the Police for not protecting her.

The Police have no duty to protect an individual. In Gonzalas vs. Castle Rock the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Police have a duty to society as a whole not to an individual. If we leave this right here it is a tragedy.

I know the woman's brother. I ran into him last night and there is more to this story. The ex-boyfriend has been a threat to her for well over a year. When she first found out about this, she asked our County Sheriff what she should do? He advised her to buy a pistol and recommended that she take defense classes from a certified instructor. She did that and obtained a Concealed Carry permit. She carried all of the time except when she was at work. When she was at work her weapon was locked in her car. Several months ago, in response to a local shooting, her employer changed their rules to no weapons on company property period. She stopped carrying her weapon when she went to work because of the rule change. A few months later she had an encounter with her ex that scared her, so she started carrying again.

One morning a few weeks ago she gave a co-worker a ride to work. She opened her glove box for some reason and the co-worker saw the weapon. When they got to work the co-worker told management about the weapon. She was confronted about it and admitted to having it and was given a written warning. When she explained why she had it, she was told to get the Protection From Abuse order and that the Police would protect her.

Her brother believes that the ex found out that she wasn't carrying to and from work and that is why he ran her off of the road and killed her. I don't know about that but it seems feasible.

In my opinion, as soon as her employer removed the ability for her to protect herself, they became responsible for her protection. I agree 100% with them not letting her carry at work. I disagree with them not allowing her to have her weapon in her car. As far as the co-worker informing management goes, my opinion would get me tossed off of ATS.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this.


My work tried that crap a few years ago. They said no weapons on company property, and also no smoking, even in your own vehicle.

A lot of people protested, and one got a lawyer involved.

Turns out, in Ohio, your vehicle is considered an extension of your personal property, and employers cannot extend their rules to include your personal vehicle.

So now, people go to their cars to smoke, and I (among many others) keep our Concealed Carry weapon in them.

I would have quit, and found another job had that not happened. My personal safety, is not worth it. Especially since the town I've lived in for almost 20 years was ranked the most dangerous city in Ohio at the time.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: JIMC5499
A week ago last Friday a woman had her car run off of the road. The driver of the car that did it, got out and shot her, killing her. He then drove off. A few hours later he was found after killing himself. The killer was her ex-boyfriend. She had obtained a Protection from Abuse Order against him. The local media ran the "Evil gun" angle and criticized the Police for not protecting her.

The Police have no duty to protect an individual. In Gonzalas vs. Castle Rock the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Police have a duty to society as a whole not to an individual. If we leave this right here it is a tragedy.

I know the woman's brother. I ran into him last night and there is more to this story. The ex-boyfriend has been a threat to her for well over a year. When she first found out about this, she asked our County Sheriff what she should do? He advised her to buy a pistol and recommended that she take defense classes from a certified instructor. She did that and obtained a Concealed Carry permit. She carried all of the time except when she was at work. When she was at work her weapon was locked in her car. Several months ago, in response to a local shooting, her employer changed their rules to no weapons on company property period. She stopped carrying her weapon when she went to work because of the rule change. A few months later she had an encounter with her ex that scared her, so she started carrying again.

One morning a few weeks ago she gave a co-worker a ride to work. She opened her glove box for some reason and the co-worker saw the weapon. When they got to work the co-worker told management about the weapon. She was confronted about it and admitted to having it and was given a written warning. When she explained why she had it, she was told to get the Protection From Abuse order and that the Police would protect her.

Her brother believes that the ex found out that she wasn't carrying to and from work and that is why he ran her off of the road and killed her. I don't know about that but it seems feasible.

In my opinion, as soon as her employer removed the ability for her to protect herself, they became responsible for her protection. I agree 100% with them not letting her carry at work. I disagree with them not allowing her to have her weapon in her car. As far as the co-worker informing management goes, my opinion would get me tossed off of ATS.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this.


My work tried that crap a few years ago. They said no weapons on company property, and also no smoking, even in your own vehicle.

A lot of people protested, and one got a lawyer involved.

Turns out, in Ohio, your vehicle is considered an extension of your personal property, and employers cannot extend their rules to include your personal vehicle.

So now, people go to their cars to smoke, and I (among many others) keep our Concealed Carry weapon in them.

I would have quit, and found another job had that not happened. My personal safety, is not worth it. Especially since the town I've lived in for almost 20 years was ranked the most dangerous city in Ohio at the time.



Or you could have just kept carrying concealed even though it wasn't "allowed." They have no legal authority over you, all you'd be doing is violating a company policy, not a law. If they somehow found out all they could do is fire you and ask you to leave. If you refused to leave, that's where the law comes in, because then you're trespassing.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

They should also be responsible for you coming and going if they prevent you from storing in your vehicle.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AaarghZombies

They should also be responsible for you coming and going if they prevent you from storing in your vehicle.


That's another thing that drives me nuts. When I go to the VA, I can't bring a weapon onto the property, even if I keep it in my car. But what if I'm not just going to the VA? It's 40 minutes from me, so I usually try to do some other things in the city on the same day.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If they do not want you carrying, they should have to have a storage area they are responsible for, and then return it to you on the way out.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Living in constant perpetual fear, where you're literally too scared to even go to work without being armed, really sounds like a fun way to go through life!

But each to their own, I suppose.


Do you lock any doors?



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Aboom

Because he knew that the Protection From Abuse order was a useless piece of paper. She had one and it did nothing.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Living in constant perpetual fear, where you're literally too scared to even go to work without being armed, really sounds like a fun way to go through life!

But each to their own, I suppose.


Welcome to the desert of the real, Neo.

It would be nice if it was lollipops and dandelions. It would be great if the worst things that existed were ice cream and bunnies.

Unfortunately that will never be the case. There will always be a violent side of mankind. Always. You can choose to ignore that by burying your head in the sand to that fact, but you have no right, zero, to make someone else do the same.

And carrying doesn't come from a place of fear, it comes from a place of simple logic, logic that used to be common sense...



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Krakatoa The law should stipulate that any organization that establishes a "gun free policy" should then be legally responsible for the protection of all those within the bounds of that zone.


I might be WAY off base here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private venues already responsible for maintaining security regardless of whether or not they are gun free zones?

For example, music venues are responsible for maintaining their own security, and they can be held legally accountable if their bouncers fail to stop drugs from being sold.


The venues aren't required to have armed security. And a lot of times your ticket comes with an agreement that you absolve the organizers of any responsibility for anything that happens to you at the event. Bouncers willfully facilitating drug dealing is an entirely different story. That makes them an accessory to a crime, of course they're not supposed to allow it.


You answered before I could log back on today. Thanks, and you are 100% correct. Which is why I reiterate it should be a LAW that they cannot add those disclaimers to their tickets. If they actively prevent you from defending yourself, then they must take that responsibility upon themselves.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982
That's interesting. My last job banned smoking on company property, even inside a/your own vehicle. I wonder if the same applies in WI? I would've loved to lawyer up and challenge that rule, but I don't work there anymore lol.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I really hope her family at least lawyers up and goes after her employer, after all they’re the ones with blood on their hands- especially the co worker. The co worker is probably protected behind the company but the company is ultimately at fault. Thoughts and prayers of course, but in the long term hoping they get a really good lawyer. That could potentially help raise awareness, and change these senseless gun free zone laws maybe even outlawing the concept of a gun free zone. They could set in motion events that may save people’s lives. Always remember, criminals do not follow the law and gun free zones make it even easier for them to commit murder. An armed society is a safer society.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

I would love to know for my own state. I am not a smoker, hate the stuff but I’m a rebel who loves to fight for the rights of people who really aren’t bothering anyone else. And I also hate the company I work for. At any given time, where smokers were once allowed to hang out and smoke on our company property, there are still 5-6 big diesel trucks sitting and idling wafting the nasty oily smelling exhaust across the parking lot enough to choke an elephant, but smoking isn’t allowed? They even encourage smokers to drive off premises to smoke, because they’re not allowed to walk to any areas off property as those properties have complained etc. This is an on clock 10-15 min smoke break, so maybe we have to wait till someone gets into an accident on the clock for having to drive to smoke? They even said you’re not allowed to stand at the intersection traffic light on the side walk (isn’t this state property now?)
edit on 19-5-2019 by soekvg because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soekvg

Nobody will touch it.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   


A week before former National Rifle Association President Oliver North said he would not seek reelection after a failed attempt to oust CEO Wayne LaPierre, he warned the group that extraordinary legal fees threaten the future of the NRA.

A series of documents posted anonymously online and verified by both The Daily Beast and The Wall Street Journal show the inner machinations of a group plagued by deep financial troubles to the tune of $24 million.

You're defending idiots
edit on 19-5-2019 by LisaCandle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Living in constant perpetual fear, where you're literally too scared to even go to work without being armed, really sounds like a fun way to go through life!

But each to their own, I suppose.


I'll never understand why people find this acceptable. It's hard to imagine having to live your life like that, as if it's just some modern day version of the American Wild West that they never grew out of.







 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join