October 30, 2013, 10:20 PM | #76 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
That's a little different from some guy saying to himself, "I'm not going to abide by the employer's no gun policy and hope I don't get caught."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 30, 2013, 10:35 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
|
Yeah, I guess it is a "little" different. Seems to me, the king wanted the arms at Concord....and seems to me, a group of men didn't agree with him...
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!! |
October 30, 2013, 10:57 PM | #78 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 31, 2013, 08:52 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
I'm more of the mindset that its not so much about obeying all your employers rules as it is about being willing to accept the consequences when you don't. I worked in the booth at an all night self serve gas station. I got robbed. I bought and secretly carried against company policy. If ever robbed again, my goal was to survive to stand in the unemployement line.
Employers are in a very sticky spot when it comes to allowing employees to carry during their work hours in that they can be held responsible for what you do with it, while they can also be held responsible for denying you protection. In many cases, they have a "no gun policy" simply because they are required by insurance or other liability reasons, and need it for legal cover for what you may do, while at the same time not caring if its violated as long as they have plausible deniability of knowing that it was being violated. In other words, I get robbed and am involved in a controversial shooting, they can wash their hands of responsibility by saying they did not know, did not sanction it, and I was violating company policy, even though they are patting me on the back on the way out the door, and glad that I was armed. |
October 31, 2013, 10:25 AM | #80 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;
Quote:
Just as companies have a plethora of choices given the number of people unemployed, there is also a "stop and rob" every 100 feet in most urban areas, their turnover is usually quite high and, the skillset required is somewhat low so, for most of us, there are options. Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; October 31, 2013 at 10:32 AM. Reason: clarification |
||
October 31, 2013, 01:42 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Umbrage was why the Internet was invented. Makes it easier to take umbrage.
My basic point is that there are complex processes that control views of morality and the actual actions based on them. Surface conversations and statements of one's motivations are naive. Umbrage vs. the real processes in moral decision making. PS - for the debate about whether companies or institutions are liable for not letting protect yourself. VT was sued for not warning folks about Cho after the first shooting. A jury originally found for the families but it was overturned. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z4 The gist being that the institution was not responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. That would probably be the same analysis if you sued for not being able to carry.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; October 31, 2013 at 02:34 PM. |
October 31, 2013, 08:22 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
born2climb said:
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2013, 10:28 PM | #83 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Who knew? |
|
October 31, 2013, 10:35 PM | #84 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
So far, the only binding legal precedents we have protect ownership of guns in the home.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 31, 2013, 10:57 PM | #85 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The reason discrimination by private parties in certain situation on certain bases (e. g., race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.) is that statutes prohibit such discrimination -- not the 14th Amendment.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 1, 2013, 07:46 AM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Quote:
I do not believe it is a 2nd amendment issue. I believe it is a private property rights issue. I have a right to refuse to open the door of my home to anyone for any reason. They have no right to exercise their constitutional rights in my home without my consent. Nobody can dispute that. The question is, do/should these private property rights extend to my business? |
|
November 1, 2013, 07:56 AM | #87 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Carry at Work
Quote:
Right now, guns aren't protected either. |
|
November 1, 2013, 09:27 AM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,287
|
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
November 1, 2013, 09:54 AM | #89 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated. Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job. Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 1, 2013, 11:56 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,287
|
Frank, I understand what your saying except that IMO there are differences between discriminating against one brand of computer over another (among other examples you referenced...) vs discriminating against a civil right. In my town there is a private business in the spotlight when earlier this year they refused to sell a lesbian couple a wedding cake because the business owners religious beliefs don’t condone it. In my opinion if they want to exercise that right then they have every right to open their business only to those customers that share their same beliefs. If they want to be open to conduct business with the public at large then they shouldn’t discriminate to any member of the public their civil rights which are protected by law… just like the right to self-defense is.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
November 1, 2013, 12:07 PM | #91 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Of course, the law can be changed. That's the province of the legislature. Legislatures have acted with regard to certain civil rights for certain classes of people. You are free in our system to try to get sufficient support for further expanding those laws to cover any other civil rights for any other classes of persons you might think should be included. The question is whether the political environment would be favorable for such an effort. There's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to conduct its business and control its property. Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 1, 2013, 12:15 PM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Violating another person's "civil rights" is illegal. What's the difference between "civil rights" and "constitutional rights"? Seems the same to me.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
November 1, 2013, 12:25 PM | #93 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 1, 2013 at 05:51 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
November 1, 2013, 12:26 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
However, carry has not been defined as a basic civil right protected by the Constitution. One might wish it to be so but it is not. Other discriminations have been declared to be illegal by statute or amendment and then supported/interpreted by the SCOTUS.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 1, 2013, 04:37 PM | #95 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
November 1, 2013, 10:46 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
+1 Aquila Blanca.
Many fast food chains are this way as are many pizza chains. |
November 2, 2013, 12:42 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Very interesting replies. Sorry I was out the last few days.
Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder. As for my view, when I hire out to someone I do agree to follow their rules if I find them moral. If they are not I may (not always) disregard them and say nothing about it (like CCW) and if caught I guess I will be fired. However, I hold my own survival above some loyalty to a company who could care less about me and would let me go in an instant if it saved them a dime. Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes. The criteria is the key and the fact is we decide what that criteria is. Some folk could never be an undercover cop as they could not lie to the crooks they were trying to catch. That's fine. But those that do become undercover cops have not lost their "integrity". The same is true I believe for Mr. Cothran in the OP. At the end of the day can you look yourself in the mirror. Mr. Cothran said yeah he could and felt no remorse for carrying. It saved his life but cost him his job. I think he did right and I hope he gets another job soon.
__________________
"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. |
November 2, 2013, 07:21 AM | #98 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
That runs counter to this: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
November 2, 2013, 07:22 AM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
|
Great post, Tennessee Gentleman. I agree almost 100%...except about the undercover cop.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!! |
November 2, 2013, 09:17 AM | #100 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Carry at Work
Quote:
With morality, there are only two choices. There either is or is not a real right and wrong. If there is, any one who violates it is wrong, no matter their opinion, no matter if they or anyone alive even KNOWS it's wrong or right. If there is not then ANY discussion of morality is pointless as it can only be defined by the person(s) with enough force to impose their views. Just because there are instances where lying is acceptable, such as undercover police, does not mean that morality is relative. Even a child understands such things. My kids know the difference between lying to me about breaking the lamp and a cop lying to a criminal. I've actually never met anyone who believes in relative morality even though I've met dozens who claim they do. Each one of them still had any number of issues on which they expressed moral outrage over a particular action/event. That's completely inconsistent. If morality is relative, it is no more cause for conflict than what color car you prefer or whether you like coffee or tea. It is your opinion and why would you possibly care if anyone agrees or not, since you freely acknowledge that the basis of your opinion is your opinion. If morality is relative, one should have no serious objection to any moral issue. An opinion, yes, but no reason to enforce that opinion. The Jews in WWII, abortion, whatever. You have your opinion but since you acknowledge that it's no more than an opinion with no true basis, there is no reason to expect anyone else to comply and no more reason for outrage than if the Nazis liked red cars and you like blue. On a more personal basis, there should be no objection to folks who lie to you, even steal from you. It is not immoral, after all. Even "ownership" is a moral concept. It's the idea that you have a specific right to something that someone else doesn't have a right to. You might find it inconvenient that you'll have to spend more money or work more hours to replace that item but you haven't been "wronged" because there is no "wrong". If your spouse "cheats", what's the problem? Just because your opinion is that they shouldn't? Must be they like blue cars and you like red. So what? If you believe that "society" defines morals, how do you define "society"? Who has the right to define that word? Why aren't the Bloods and Crips "societies" and what right do we have to impose our views on them, or even object to their imposing their views on us, since it's all just two "societies" opinions? The nation of Germany in WWII was certainly a "society", what right do other societies have to interfere with what they've decided is "moral"? So then, if morals are relative then the basis of their enforcement comes only from the barrel of a gun, the threat of penalty, the ability to enforce one's views. If that's the case and we bring this back the original question, it is not immoral for the company to prohibit weapons, it is not immoral for the employee to carry anyway. Of course, it also wouldn't be immoral to steal from the company or use your co-workers as human shields either, because there is no "immoral". |
|
Tags |
carry at work cothran |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|