The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 7, 2009, 09:29 PM   #76
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.
Not in this country. Note:

Muslim woman can sue to wear veil in license photo


Muslim women sue and win case against UPS over dress code dispute

Imams removed from plane sue US Airways

AirTran Airways apologized Friday to nine Muslims kicked off a New Year's Day flight to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 7, 2009, 09:35 PM   #77
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,928
Show me the numbers.

Concealed carry is legal on campus in several states.

Show me how college students, faculty, and members of the public on campus in these states have been endangered or harmed by lawfully carried concealed weapons.

Show me the blood running in the streets and the lives destroyed by lawfully carried weapons in these states.

Show me how deadly the lack of restrictive laws has been for the folks who live in states where concealed carry on campus is legal.

I want facts, not emotions. Show me the numbers.

It is right that the burden of proof be placed upon those who would limit or outlaw a certain behavior, not upon those who would maintain the natural state of freedom.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old January 7, 2009, 10:11 PM   #78
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,887
Quote:
Quote:
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.

Not in this country. Note:
A graphic example of the same principle being taken to the extreme. I view such cases as just as bad.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 7, 2009, 10:15 PM   #79
lwestatbus
Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Posts: 64
Some Interesting Developments

I've been away from the post for a few days. It sure sparked some interest.

Here are a couple of addenda to my original thoughts:
  1. My ideas were based on the premise that the government would control the ability to carry. I'm not saying I agree with that but that is the way it is. Florida also prohibits carry into certain large venues such as sporting events. It also prohibits carry in bars (you can take it into the Red Lobster but stay out of the bar area) as well as "notorious establishments." Many of the responses here were actually addressing that issue more than the OP thoughts.
  2. There were some very insightful posts about the difference between self defense (hold the fort until the cavalry arrives) and active engagement (you ARE the cavalry). I had not considered this issue when I made the OP. I would head for the gunfire. They are my kids. Think whatever you might. That's the way it is for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Rose
Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination.
LOL, we kick people off campus all the time. We discriminate against them because they are stupid or lazy (and sometimes because of some just plain unfortunate circumstances).

Finally, a nod to the young vets who contributed to the thread. I returned back to campus after one year in Kuwait and Iraq in the first rotation and the invasion. I am now seeing a large number of combat vets in my classes. I would LOVE to have them around if someone starts trouble. We'd fire and maneuver his butt into oblivion.
lwestatbus is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 11:12 AM   #80
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,680
I would like to return to my example of a male wearing ladies' underwear.

It is concealed.

Some folks might think wearing ladies' underwear is predictive of a risk to society.

It is a behavior.

Does the boss have a right to ban a male from wearing ladies' underwear and demand the right to inspect you to see if you do such (as they might to detect a concealed weapon)?

As Pax says, the risk of concealed carriers going berserk is very low. It is probably as low as the risk of males wearing ladies' underwear going nuts and nailing you with the stapler.

So by suggesting that concealed carry per se is a significant risk, we negate the argument for allowing it anywhere.

As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old January 8, 2009, 11:58 AM   #81
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Fortunately, in my state the Legislature has not granted state-owned and funded colleges and universities the authority to make such policies regarding CCW.
Don H is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 05:49 PM   #82
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,887
Quote:
As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.
But therin lies the rub. Who gets to determine what behavior disrupts the job? If an employee who is carrying prints or otherwise accidentally exposes his firearm and frightens a customer or co-worker, does that not disrupt the business? While I agree that the chances of an employee legally carring a gun causing trouble are quite low, who are you or I to tell an institution what does and does not disrupt their business or operation?
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 05:58 PM   #83
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,680
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.

I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).

The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old January 8, 2009, 06:23 PM   #84
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,887
Quote:
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.
Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions. You have to look at this outside the realm of just RKBA, what other behavior might the gov't tell institution they must allow? Romantic relationships between employees aren't necessarily disruptive, but I don't hear anyone saying that we need legeslative action to protect them as they have the potential to be very disruptive. Many people view company dress codes as overly restrictive, should the government mandate abolition of those as well?

Quote:
I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).
Once again, a person doesn't have control over their gender (without elective surgery anyway) and thus refusing to hire one sex or the other is discrimination. They're two separate issues.

Quote:
The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
I agree the accidental exposure of an employees firearm is no less disruptive than the accidental exposure of a customer's. That's why a mall should have the right to prohibit customers from having firearms on their premises if they wish.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 07:00 PM   #85
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.
Agreed, but religion is a protected class. Carrying firearms is not.

Quote:
About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.
Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.
Glenn, to me, denying a person the right to defend themselves (a God given right that cannot be "waived") and then offering no reasonable protection as a result IS a moral question as is this thread I think. Any rule that forces you to choose between feeding your family, going to school and staying alive is immoral and IMO you have no moral requirement to follow it. Openly or otherwise. You may be punished if you are caught but that is true with any immoral law or rule.

The Rosa Parks example doesn't fit since she was publicly trying to show the evils of racial discrimination. If disguising herself to save her own life was needed, she would not be dishonest for doing so.

Some people will say: "Get another job!" "Go to another school!" "Move!"
but in my CCW class I had 12 out of 15 in class who happened to be female. They were getting their permits (all of them) because at some point they had been threatened by ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands. As long as those guys were after them they weren't safe ANYWHERE. So, if a school says no carry and the ex comes in and kills the women on campus who cannot carry because she "follows the rules" , how does that seem?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 8, 2009 at 07:10 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 10:53 AM   #86
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,680
Quote:
Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions.
I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.

One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.

I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.

So I equate self-defense as a right equal with religious beliefs and ethnic/racial identifiers for being protected from the vagaries of employers who only care about their bottom line.

If you disagree with that view, then that's it.

The equating is crucial to me. Being a FOG, I do recall my mother telling me of having to lie about her religion to get a job in the Depression. I supposed if we had the Internet. then, the businesses would have some philosophical blather about why private property rights gave them the right to only have White Christian males at work (not bashing that group - but that's the truth of that time).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old January 9, 2009, 12:17 PM   #87
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.
Glenn, you and I have a serious case of agreement here. Which BTW IS a moral issue
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 12:40 PM   #88
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,680
TG - pardon me for being a professor. For a project, I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives (blah, blah)!

One dividing point is whether:

1. Following the tenets of one's own conscience is the highest level of morality

0r

2. Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle, despite your own belief, is most moral.

Then, if you choose to disobey the principle in #2 - and there is a touch of self-interest, is your action moral or purely venial?

Blah, blah!

So the heck with the property owner who opens for business! They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.

Or go live on an Island with the Professor, Skipper, Ginger ,etc.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old January 9, 2009, 05:40 PM   #89
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,319
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense. You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so (although they can be very useful for that).

For lawsuits about those harmed while their ability to carry was denied, I can see that. I would hold the party who disarms a victim partially responsible for injury sustained within their jurisdiction and if the victim was disarmed due to their law/policy. I can also see how property rights would allow privately owned locations to ban certain items.

Public universities should be subject to state pre-emption laws on firearms. They receive taxpayer money and operate as a governmental/public organization. They should fall under the same rules. (i.e. I agree with the basis of the Utah ruling.) I don't think the government should necessarily regulate privately run schools the same way, due to property rights issues.

From a logical standpoint, if a person can carry at other public, unsecured locations, a college campus should be no different. The state "trusts" them to safely carry at the supermarket, why not on campus?
raimius is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 12:30 AM   #90
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives
You poor devil! Ting Tang Walla Walla Bing Bang!

Quote:
Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle
Making a work rule or law that disarms someone and then failing to provide protection for said person is not "democratically ins..." whatever. It is immoral and we have no duty to obey immoral laws.

Quote:
They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.
No one has the right to take away a God-given right of self defense, business or otherwise.

BTW Glenn, I always preferred Maryanne.

Quote:
You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 02:38 AM   #91
209
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 269
Quote:
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
But a bad guy would be able to feel Chuck Norris' mere presence in the building and would be too afraid to even enter.

I keep researching the number of permit (CCW or whatever else they are called around the country) holders who are arrested for shooting up a building or going on a shooting spree. The stats I can find appear to be so rare, I don't even count them and rarely find one I could count to begin with...

Where's the blood bath? Where are all of the permitees playing Superman and rushing to the defense of others? It doesn't happen. Those are bogus counter-arguments to the carrying of firearms. IMO, 99.9999% of the folks who carry guns in accordance with the established laws in their location are indeed law-abiding citizens. They are mature people who behave maturely.
209 is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 03:53 AM   #92
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,319
After reading through I conclude that..

the general consensus is

while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

that if property owners prohibit firearms, you can be sked to leave, but there should be no legal action taken against you if you comply.

that universities who accept public money should not enact policies more restricive than general law.

that the public access nature of colleges does not make them any kind of special case, and so no law or policy more restictive than general law is acceptable.

that there is a great deal of confusion over the legal roles and responsibilities of CCW holders, particularly among those who do not CCW.

and for Glenn, I do agree that employers should not be allowed to fire, or otherwise discipline employees for anything other than actual job performance issues.

However, Glenn, the employer's looplhole is in the employment contract, and we all have one somewhere. There is almost always somthing in the contract that covers something like "actions of the employee that are detrimental to the public image of the company". Ususally listed somewhere in the employee handbook, or company policy rules. Govt laws only prevent firing for certain specific reasons, age, sex, religion, race, etc. Anything else is up to the company. So, if the company thought that you were presenting them in a bad light by wearing women's underwear, they are within the law (if not within good sense) to fire you for that, because you signed a contract with them, allowing them that authority over you. These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.


They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 07:25 AM   #93
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
If a customer or invitee, I have a moral responsibility to respect his wishes, but no legal responsibility to do so. As long as he uses legal loopholes to allow criminals free reign, I use legal loopholes to defend myself.

Quote:
And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.
Which is why I am in favor of laws like the one in Florida which prohibits an employer from disciplining employees with CCW who keep guns in their car. In fact, I have no problem with them adding the workplace to that.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 08:03 AM   #94
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,887
Quote:
I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.
So how far should we let the government intervene? I agree that private institutions have a long history of bad decisions, but so does the government. If the private institutions are making the bad decisions, at least I still have the choice to go elsewhere, if the government does it I'm stuck unless I leave the country. So, I view leaving it up to the institutions as the lesser of two evils.

Quote:
One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.
The problem with your logic is that a religeon is not necessarily a behavior, it's a belief. Being Catholic is a belief while fasting on Good Friday is a behavior, being Muslim is a belief while praying five times a day is a behavior, being Jewish is a belief while celebrating Passover is a behavior get the idea? Private institutions can and do prohibit certain religious behaviors such as wearing certain types of clothing and jewelery or performing religious ceremonies on company premises.

Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; January 10, 2009 at 09:19 AM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 10:02 AM   #95
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.
I totally agree. The problem here is that the company invariably claims third party interference: that is, they claim that they have no control over whether or not a goblin chooses to rob their store and shoot half a dozen customers, therefore claiming that they shouldn't be held liable for that act, yet choosing to ignore the fact that their very act of ensuring a risk free environment for the bad guy to rob the store was a factor in the robbery, as well as ignoring the fact that the bad guy would not have been able to shoot those 6 customers had one of them been armed.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 01:52 PM   #96
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
And if they do not assume that protection you are morally justified in ignoring the prohibition but may face sanctions if caught.

Quote:
These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs. They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
While I agree that an employer may fire you if he catches you CCWing on the job, no one can ask you to "waive" your right to self defense. I have the moral right to ignore those work rules if they save my life. I will not give my life for the employers right to control his private property (but really his bottomline)

There is a legal term for this waiver stuff that relates to contracts but I can't remember what they call it. When I was in insurance lots of people I insured thought that if they got signed waivers from people who used their facilities or rode their rides were protected by that waiver. They weren't and got sued if somebody got hurt and their insurance almost always paid. One lawyer told me, you can't waive your own responsibility.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:31 AM   #97
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
CCW the new gay. Keep it in the closet, and all's fine. :barf:
Socrates is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 01:02 AM   #98
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius
You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
I'm not advocating hand-to-hand over firearms, that's for sure! The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.
Perhaps we should say something like "effective defense," since not many people can easily win over an armed attacker without some sort of weapon.

I'm an advocate of carry rights. (Currently, I limit my advocacy to "unsecured" locations.)
raimius is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 01:24 AM   #99
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.
I guess I thought we were talking about firearms and therefore the threat of them being used against us. At least that is what I thought the thread was about.

Quote:
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense.
I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 08:16 AM   #100
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.
Exactly. Sure you can TRY to defend yourself without a firearm, but only in Hollywood can a 100 pound woman beat up a 200 pound man, or a 200 pound man defeat 3 attackers, unless they oblige you by attacking you one at a time.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15514 seconds with 7 queries