Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > guns in schools?!?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2013, 05:29 PM   #121
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jgoertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 469
Liked 250 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 88

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau

Not so. This is more progressive BS. An employer does not has authority to violate your rights any more than the government does, but we have been indoctrinate to to believe this. Does your employer have the authority to tell who to vote for or how to worship? The 2nd Amendment don't say ANYONE has the authority to 'infringe' these rights. Unless you let the progressive have their way!!!
If you wish to CCW and go about your business it is your right and business, no one else, period!
Not really so. An employer can ask you to sign an employment agreement when you are hired that includes a firearms ban on company property. If you refuse to sign it or violate it after being hired, you are let go. It normally will be spelled out in the Policy and Procedures Manual which you will be given and have to sign that you have received and will abide by on pain of termination. It's legal and binding: you have signed a contract.
__________________

May the Force be with you.
An armed society is a polite society - Robert Heinlein
A Gun-Free-Zone is nothing more than a hunting preserve for wackos.

jgoertz is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 05:51 PM   #122
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Liked 223 Times on 155 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

jgoertz : You are right . JimRau : You are mistaken on this point . Let me explain :
The constitution specifies the authority of the government ( now including state government ) . The Bill of Rights thus protects the citizen from and only from government actions.

That doesn't mean an employer can violate your rights willy nilly but it does mean the Second Amendment doesn't require your employer to allow you to be armed or to wear biker colors at work etc. In fact, an employer can question you about thefts without advising you of your rights and fire you for refusing to answer questions and cooperate in an investigation. Courts can allow evidence gathered by a private citizen during a warrantless search .

Where I see a problem is in Public Schools . An employee of a Public School is being disarmed by the government as a condition of working for his government and I say his Second Amendment rights are violated .

__________________
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 06:24 PM   #123
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 8,794
Liked 5154 Times on 2940 Posts
Likes Given: 4369

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoertz View Post
Not really so. An employer can ask you to sign an employment agreement when you are hired that includes a firearms ban on company property. If you refuse to sign it or violate it after being hired, you are let go. It normally will be spelled out in the Policy and Procedures Manual which you will be given and have to sign that you have received and will abide by on pain of termination. It's legal and binding: you have signed a contract.
When you sign the policy manual, you VOLUNTARILY waive your rights.

Most large corporations will terminate you for racial and ethnic slurs. Because you AGREED to abide by company poilicy.
__________________

"Politics is the art of the possible" Otto von Bismarck.

locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 07:11 PM   #124
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 2,613
Liked 1603 Times on 952 Posts
Likes Given: 788

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rentacop View Post
jgoertz : You are right . JimRau : You are mistaken on this point . Let me explain :
The constitution specifies the authority of the government ( now including state government ) . The Bill of Rights thus protects the citizen from and only from government actions.

That doesn't mean an employer can violate your rights willy nilly but it does mean the Second Amendment doesn't require your employer to allow you to be armed or to wear biker colors at work etc. In fact, an employer can question you about thefts without advising you of your rights and fire you for refusing to answer questions and cooperate in an investigation. Courts can allow evidence gathered by a private citizen during a warrantless search .

Where I see a problem is in Public Schools . An employee of a Public School is being disarmed by the government as a condition of working for his government and I say his Second Amendment rights are violated .
So when the courts ordered the private businesses here in the south to remove their 'Whites Only" signs they had no authority to do so!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 08:40 PM   #125
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 8,794
Liked 5154 Times on 2940 Posts
Likes Given: 4369

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
So when the courts ordered the private businesses here in the south to remove their 'Whites Only" signs they had no authority to do so!
They has every right to do so. The signs violated the 14th amendment.

What are you getting at?
This is apples and oranges.
__________________

"Politics is the art of the possible" Otto von Bismarck.

locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 09:55 PM   #126
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Liked 223 Times on 155 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

locutus :
JimRau is right ( even if he is being sarcastic ) . Most of the civil rights laws are unconstitutional . Private businesses are supposed to be free to do business with whoever they want .
That doesn't mean I favor discrimination ; it is simply that government has limited powers under our Constitution . The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the government .

__________________
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 02:33 AM   #127
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SB777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 375
Liked 254 Times on 158 Posts
Likes Given: 272

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
I love these either or arguments. One side is saying if you don't put guns in the schools the poor children will be defenseless. The other side is saying that guns are the only answer to keeping our children safe. Since when does gun=defense? Have you ever heard of safe rooms? How about sally ports and concertina wire? Has anyone bothered to think that defense could mean fortify? You accomplish the goal of keeping our kids safe within the school property, and you don't have rabid 2nd Amendment opinions tearing apart the fabric of the community.

Will it cost money to fortify our schools? Yes. Will it cost money to post police or security guards at the schools? Yes. Will it cost more to arm teachers? Yes. So, taking salaries and benefits, liability insurance, and materials into consideration, which would cost less over 10 years time? Remember, ultimately you as a taxpayer are going to end up paying for it.

The problem with all the debate going on since the Sandy Hook School shootings is the attention to reactive rather than proactive answers. The proactive approach would address the originator of the crime - the criminal mind that can comprehend a senario capable of heinious actions. If that were addresse with a serious commitment we wouldn't have to think about safe rooms, sally ports, security guards, etc. The problem lies in the politicians fears of PC police attacks due to stigmatizing mental illness. In the meantime, there is no hesitation to stigmatize gun owners as potential criminals.
__________________

"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will."

Ronald Reagan

SB777 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 03:43 AM   #128
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 5,803
Liked 4550 Times on 2200 Posts
Likes Given: 1355

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB777 View Post
The problem with all the debate going on since the Sandy Hook School shootings is the attention to reactive rather than proactive answers. The proactive approach would address the originator of the crime - the criminal mind that can comprehend a senario capable of heinious actions. If that were addresse with a serious commitment we wouldn't have to think about safe rooms, sally ports, security guards, etc. The problem lies in the politicians fears of PC police attacks due to stigmatizing mental illness. In the meantime, there is no hesitation to stigmatize gun owners as potential criminals.
Bingo!

Which is why I... And many others... Unapologetically and without compromise declare the whether or not we ever pick up our rifles in defense of liberty is NOT up to us... It's up to those currently in office who would attempt to subjugate us and the LEO's who would choose to follow such unconstitutional orders.

Defense of liberty is ALWAYS the right course of action regardless of the uniform worn by the oppressor.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 03:44 AM   #129
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Liked 223 Times on 155 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

All the media attention has been on exploiting this for gun control . Wayne La Pierre of the NRA has discussed video games , movies and other factors . He has not gotten the coverage he deserves .

__________________
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 01:08 PM   #130
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SB777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 375
Liked 254 Times on 158 Posts
Likes Given: 272

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rentacop View Post
All the media attention has been on exploiting this for gun control . Wayne La Pierre of the NRA has discussed video games , movies and other factors . He has not gotten the coverage he deserves .
The media talking points highlight "Gun Violence" as the cause of crime. Why not highlight "Violent Crime" as the topic of concern and address the many facets of the criminal mind? It's clear that the Rhom Emmanuel "Take advantage of a crisis situation to progress your agenda" (paraphrased) has been in maximum drive since the Sandy Hook School shootings.
__________________

"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will."

Ronald Reagan

SB777 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Gunsmithing Schools? Gordo323 Gunsmithing Forum 19 09-26-2013 05:09 AM
gunsmithing schools? dcp1987 Gunsmithing Forum 12 06-07-2013 05:11 PM
Guards in schools John_Deer North Carolina Gun Forum 5 02-01-2013 12:44 PM
gunsmith schools kimb3rfr3ak Gunsmithing Forum 2 01-28-2013 04:39 AM
Article claiming guns are already allowed in some schools GonzoLonzo Legal and Activism 3 01-15-2013 12:34 AM



Newest Threads