AOL is Anti-Second Amendment .

Boomerang · February 2002

For those of you that may not be aware that AOL/Time Warner are Anti-Second Amendment companies. You really need understand this and drop all their service if you have them. Fellow gun owners, there are alot of ISP out there, and probably much cheaper.To make a long story short, AOL has fired three of their employees for having guns in their personal vehicles. These vehicles were located in an open-air unsecured area of the AOL/Time Warner parking lot. These three employees brought long guns with them because that were going to the shooting range after work. They were noted on a security camera transfering their guns from one car to another. They never brought them into the building. After management viewed the video tape, the employees were terminated. BTW, there were no complaints raised by anyone in their office. This is all a management response to their anti-gun policy. Plainly, it is just AOL's Anti Gun / Anti Second Amendment stance that resulted in these guys getting fired.If you are a gun owner and proud to be a part of what this great country stands for, then drop all services provided by AOL/Time Warner, and let them know why you are doing it. Believe me, sixty million gun owners can make a difference. This is the only way these Anti-Second Amendment companies will finally get the message.Boomer

Protect our Constitutional Rights. [This message has been edited by Boomerang (edited 02-23-2002).]

niklasal · February 2002

I think many rather recent events have caused a great deal of paranoia in the workplace. Yes, they were not out of their rights, but I don't think it's a good idea to mix guns and work. After all that postal worker news, it does make people nervous. Still everyone should drop AOL just because they suck-@$$. Their programs are too invasive in your computer, they are too expensive (i pay less for Qwest DSL than i did for 56k AOL) and they have EXTREMELY poor service.

NIKLASAL@hotmail.com

BlueTic · February 2002

Niklasal - little paraniod are we? Why not mix guns and work? We talk about guns and ammo all the time. People need to get over this paranoid attitude, that everybody who owns a gun can and will go postal. It is pure bullsh1t. If people were a little more used to firearms instead of being scared of the hype we might have a little less crime..

IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)

alledan · February 2002

Aol and Earthlink both are running the FBI's "carnivore" spyware. I bet these two isp's didn't even flinch about it.

Gordian Blade · February 2002

I'm going to take a little bit of a different tack here and see where it leads. Before I start, I should note that I can't stand AOL and wouldn't consider using it if they gave it away free, but I do have Road Runner. Road Runner is the only choice for high-speed internet access where I live. I have no complaints about it, other than I wish it cost less.AOL Time Warner owns their parking lot, even if it is outside some controlled perimeter. They evidently have a policy of no firearms on their property as a condition of employment. Without knowing the details, I am going to assume that this policy was published in advance and not just made up after the fact to cover the incident.Since (almost) everyone on this site enjoys owning and shooting firearms, let's pick another freedom that many people find obnoxious and let's go to the case of a private person employing someone instead of a large corporation. The moral issues are the same, but it may help us consider what happened in a slightly different way.For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are a busy, highly paid professional, say a surgeon, with a large property that needs to be taken care of. Suppose you are interested in hiring a gardener who will come to your property twice a week to do yardwork. You heard of a case in the neighborhood where a different gardener was showing pornographic magazines to the kids, so you make it a condition of employment that the gardener is not to bring pornographic magazines onto your property.One day, you happen to walk by his truck at the end of your driveway and you see a Penthouse magazine on the front seat. Do you (a) have the right to fire the gardener, and (b) is it fair to him if you do? The gardener might say it was at the end of the driveway, not easily visible to kids, he didn't have it out, and besides, it was only Penthouse which you can buy at any convenience store, not "hard core" porn. Do any of his excuses hold water? I say no. You are the employer, you have the right to set the conditions of employment, you have the right to fire him.I see the AOL case as the same thing.

RancheroPaul · February 2002

Let me add a little to this. The AOL office is located in Ogden, Utah, where this happened. Their office is in an old grocery store which has several other stores in a "L" shaped sort of strip mall around it. There is also a "Fast Food" burger place on the edge of this area and attached. All of these places use a "common" parking lot and AOL says they have control of the lot because they are leasing the building with parking. All of the other business share this same parking, burgers, greeting cards, antiques, etc., all in the same "strip mall" parking area. This occurred in this parking lot at the extreme edge as far away from the AOL building as was physically possible. Curiously, AOL's security is provided by the Airport Security firm name "Argenbright" who is the outfit that allowed the Terrorists of 9-11 onto the planes in Boston and furnish security in numerous other airports in the U.S. The Government will have Argenbright out within 60 days, according to reports in the newspapers. Pretty weird, huh?

If You Can't Buy a Pair, Get a Spare!

Gordian Blade · February 2002

RancheroPaul, that's an interesting twist. So we change our argument a little and say that the person who hired the gardener is renting the large property and is responsible for its upkeep as part of the lease agreement.By the way, many large companies have terms of employment that some might find onerous. In one famous case, a female employee (not of AOL) who interacted with the public was forced to wear some makeup to look more attractive or be fired.

salzo · February 2002

GordiaBlade- Why and how do you compare someone who enjoys child pornography, and exposes children to pornograhy, to a gun owner, who chooses to arm himself or carry?I agree 100 percent that an employer should be able to set rules with respect to his employess and the work place. I think a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain ethnic groups. If an employer does that, you can count on me not doing business with that employer. And if an employer chooses to have "anti gun" rules, then that employer can count on not having my business.I fired my accountant after I received an email that he sent out to all of his clients. He was requesting donations for the million moms, and reminded us that it was tax deductible. I called him and told him I will not give business to someone who is contributing to the demise of my rights.

Happiness is a warm gun[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 02-23-2002).]

berto64 · February 2002

Might be wise to makes sure an employer fits Your lifestyle instead of employees sucking up to the corporations. I know it sounds impossible, I know several people who have told corporate America to shove it! They have either become entrepanuers on their own or are working at a much less stressfulljob. What difference does the difference in income make if the stress makes you suicidal?MOberto

What! Trade my M-14 for that plastic piece of ___t!Endeavor to Persevere

RancheroPaul · February 2002

OKay then. Let's add the rest of the facts here, also. First of all, no one is sure just what part of this parking area actually is under AOL's control, (leased). Second, two of the employees just arrived in the parking lot to meet the other who had just gotten off work, and had parked on the far edge. This is when they were observed transferring the guns from one vehicle to another. THIRD, and probably most important in this specific case, all three had been advised specifically and directly within a few days prior to this incident by their employer, AOL, that further disregard of AOL's firearms policy WOULD result in discipline action against these three by AOL.They had been warned about violations prior to actually being fired after this incident, and, FOURTH, all three acknowledged being warned.......all isn't as it first appears!

If You Can't Buy a Pair, Get a Spare!

Gordian Blade · February 2002

Hi salzo, I was hoping someone would bite on my hook. We (the guys shooting the breeze on this site) of course find nothing wrong with firearms, although we acknowledge that guns can be horribly misused. But many people find private ownership of firearms to be just as obnoxious a practice as other people find pornography. So what I was trying to do was set up a theoretical example in which we don't have an automatic sympathetic opinion about the freedom that is being curtailed. In the hypothetical case, the gardener didn't show the magazine to any kids, some other gardener did it in the past. Just like these guys didn't do anything wrong with their rifles, but others have in the past. The question here is how much freedom is allowed to do something that is normally an adult's right but the employer finds obnoxious? In this case, it's the freedom to look at pictures of naked women. Does an employer have the right to limit that freedom as a condition of employment while on his property? And if so, then why wouldn't that employer also have the right to limit the freedom to keep and bear arms while an employee is on his property?I agree that I would fire any accountant who solicited my donation to an anti-gun org. There is always another accountant out there. But at some point reality sets in. For example, I would rather not buy items made in China. However, many times I don't have a choice of China versus not China for a specific item. Try to buy a lantern battery not made in China. Or in my case with Road Runner, either I get Road Runner from AOL Time Warner or access the net at around 50K depending on the quality of the phone line, which would hurt the efficiency of my occupation. And the phone company isn't 100% pure either.And speaking of rights, I'm getting really discouraged about how our rights (as in the Constitution) are being eroded. Amendment 1 is about to join 2, 4, and 5 in the shredder. But that's another topic.[This message has been edited by Gordian Blade (edited 02-23-2002).]

RugerNiner · February 2002

Gordian Blade; I think you used a poor example only because the Supreme Court has not been able to define pornography so how can the homeowner. Yet a gun is defined.No arguement here, just a retort.

Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!

thelarester · February 2002

Where is your source for this ? Can you post a link to the story ?

Boomerang · February 2002

Good replies, but the point is missed. AOL has drawn their line in the sand. What does the individual do. Do we sleep them with them, or do we Boycott them? I decide not to give them any money to erode my and others constitutional rights. AOL's policy of not allowing guns in the "WORKPLACE" is reasonable and is their right to do so. Not allowing guns in unsecured public parking lot is not only onerous but is unreasonable, and unconstitutional. AOL provides no security if their employees are attacked in these areas. These guys that brought hunting guns and transferred them in the parking lot did no wrong. Get it straight, the management of AOL did. This kind of creeping incrementalism and infringements on our constitutional rights should not be tolerated. For those gun owners that elect to continue to use AOLs services, knowing what AOLs anti-gun /Anti-Second Amendment stance is, have no right to complain when laws are passed that take away your right not only to keep and bear but to sell as well. Get a grip guys, you are part of the problem in America.Boomer

Protect our Constitutional Rights.

Blokey · February 2002

NO S**T AOL is anti 2nd Amemdment!That's why I NEVER have and NEVER will go with AOL.I use Outdoors Unlimited ISP.

Iconoclast · February 2002

Blokey has it right. AOL is now & always has been, a staunch supporter of the gunphobes. Yes, they have the right to set the rules in their workplace & these three guys made a major mistake in violating them. The issue is not, however, this incident. The issue is AOL policy toward the private ownership of firearms. Anyone who uses their services (such as it is, but that is another story), is indirectly aiding the enemy. Do you really want to do that when there are alternative companies which are Second Amendment supporters? Do you?

Boomerang · February 2002

This is the followup to the original post. This was from a Josey1 post. I will post the original one when I find it. Help me out Josey1. I have already gon back 20 pages and my computer is slowing down.This is the judges decision in the case. http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=00020204231020267056

Protect our Constitutional Rights.

Iconoclast · February 2002

AOL has always been opposed to the possesion of firearms by private parties. That is the view of their ownership and is reflected not only in the company's personnel policies but also in their philanthropy. Certainly any company has the right to set the rules for behavior on company property. These three knowingly violated that policy and have no grounds, legal or ethical, to complain. But that was *NOT* the point of the post. Boomerang's suggestion was simply that those who use AOL services (such as they are; that's an entirely different thread) might wish to consider a different ISP. And this point is well taken. Do you want *your* money to support an organization which actively seeks to subvert your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Well, do you?

boeboe · February 2002

I started trying to steer people out of AOL three years ago due to their anti-gun position. It makes me sick when I see someone on gunbroker with an AOL address. People just need to be informed. For every dollar you spend with AOL, some part of it will be used to take away your guns.3

Gordian Blade · February 2002

Boomerang, thanks for the link to the original story. Here I was trying to discuss whether in theory a general principle exists that might cover how much a company can control an employee's exercise of freedom on its property, while the actual judge in the case was simply using any excuse he could find to enforce his own views on gun control. Here's the telling quote from the judge in the case:"I don't think a worker should have to face the prospect of getting up to go to work in the morning wondering if a co-worker he's had some friction with is armed," Dutson said.Guess what, judge, do you think someone who is willing to murder another human being is going to care whether it's against company policy to bring a firearm to work?Now, on the subject of a boycott of AOL: There are plenty of alternatives in the area of dial-up ISPs, so a boycott of AOL is easy in the sense that not much personal sacrifice is required since there are many viable (and better) alternatives. It gets a little harder to boycott the Time Warner part of the equation if that's the company providing cable service in your area. You can always live without cable TV, I know I can and do. But in my case it gets even worse because Time Warner is the only company providing high-speed internet access in my area. (Our phone system doesn't have DSL capability.) So a total boycott of Time Warner for me would directly impact the way I make a living.I know that the people on this board are interested in protecting 2nd Amendment rights, and I am also. But those aren't our only rights that are under assault. Many companies either directly or indirectly through their foundations support causes or organizations that are engaged in attempts to limit our freedom of speech, economic freedoms, etc. If you were to compile a list of them, your choices of who to do business with would be very narrow.

Boomerang · February 2002

Gordian Blade - As some one noted earlier, owning a gun should not be equated to perverse or criminal activities. Your arguement is flawed from the beginning. Secondly, Penthouse is not a child pornographic magazine, nor is it a true pornographic magazine. I know this could be considered splitting hairs, but facts are facts. The problem that I have with AOL in this case is a fundamental over reach of their workplace policies. Given the facts that these employees brought these guns onto a distal porton of an open-air unsecured parking lot. Further, this same parking lot is shared with a lot of other businesses, and in reality AOL probably allows other non-employee parking to occur without any challenges. To me at least, this does not constitute what AOL's pretends to be a true secure business workplace. Where and when do AOL's rights end, and the rights of the average citizen begin.Now, I am going to turn your arguement around. Just suppose that you are that doctor from your previous post, and that the gardener does have child pornograpic material all over the front seat. Moreover the gardner is luring kids to his car to show them this perverse material. Although he is the only gardener in the area with the best response time and also has the largest, highest pressure water hoses in town: Question - Do you continue to do business with him because he is really good and fast, while knowing that one day he probably will molest your and your neighbors children? Gordian Blade - How does this scenario differ from you continuing to use AOL/Time Warner as your ISP? Is your sacrifice still to great when the you consider the consequences and the potential outcome of your and others continued support of AOL/Time Warner. Boomer

Protect our Constitutional Rights.[This message has been edited by Boomerang (edited 02-24-2002).]

BlueTic · February 2002

Their infringment on an employees rights is not OK, by any means. I work in a refinery and we are not allowed to have firearms on site for SAFETY reasons - that I do agree with. If I had a concealed weapons permit in the state of Utah (again an infringement on my rights - permits) and there was a company which said I could not use my rights - is that company not infringing on my rights. They want to run a corperation in AMERICA, using AMERICAN employees and impose some draconian rule for no other reason than one of the big wigs doesn't like guns and wants to impose his feelings on others. Is there something in their offices that will blow up because of being close to a firearm.I thought it was funny comparing this to porn. I don't like porn around my kids. If I could afford a gardner do I have the right to impose my will apon him - no - as long as he does not break the law - exposing minors - and the mags are in his locked vehicle (his property which I should not be looking into anyway)I should not say one GO&$#%&^ word to him - I would be a hypocrit if I did.......

IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)

S&W Man · February 2002

This brings up an interesting question I have had for some time. I work in Indiana for a company out of Mass. I work on the road with a company vehicle. I have a caarry license from Indiana. The company has a "no weapons" policy. Does this mean I can never carry when in that vehicle or going to or from the range? Also, there are more tools in my kit, company supplied, that will work as weapons than one might imagine. Is it wrong to carry them?Just some questions and foor for thought.

The second admendment GUARANTEES the other nine and the Constitution!

Gordian Blade · February 2002

Yes, there is something to be said about the fact that the AOL employees were so far away from the building that it is questionable whether they were in an AOL-controlled area or not. The judge ruled in favor of AOL, but after reading his statement it is clear to me that he was biased.My example with the gardener was, I think, well selected. Like the AOL employees, he did not do anything illegal. I didn't say that anyone had child pornography, only that a previous gardener somewhere else in the neighborhood showed pornography (legal, non-child) to kids. So my example was a person who takes something that is legal for an adult to own (like a firearm) and then misuses it for an illegal and immoral purpose. The surgeon was worried that his gardener would take a legal item (the magazine) and use it for illegal purposes on the surgeon's property, although he had no specific reason to suspect that the gardner actually would. AOL is worried that an employee might take a legal firearm and use it to shoot someone at AOL.The magazine in question was also selected by me for the example because it can be debated whether it is really over the line into pornography. Ask just about any Christian group whether Penthouse is pornographic and you'll get a definite positive answer. However, it is legal. Many people would like to change the laws to make Penthouse and other magazines like it illegal. The same goes with guns. Many groups find private ownership of any guns to be an obnoxious aspect of American society and want to make that illegal.So to get back to my analogy and how it applies to my case of using Road Runner, the best analogy is that I'm neither the gardener nor the surgeon, but someone else in town who hears about what is going on between the two of them. Suppose I'm a carpenter and I have a problem in my wrist that needs surgery or I can't do my job efficiently. Also suppose that society has arranged things so that if I need a surgeon, I have to go to him. (Some kind of "Hillary Health Care".) And finally, suppose the surgeon is a member of a group that wants to ban all "dirty" magazines, books, movies, etc. Maybe I don't like how he treated the gardener, and maybe I think his group is trying to step on freedom. Do I refuse to use his services that I need and can't get elsewhere? The harm caused the surgeon by my boycott is insignificant to his income and very abstract. The harm caused to me by failing to get my medical condition cured is significant and immediate.You might say that if I could get the whole town to boycott, then it might make a difference. There are a couple of problems. First, since he is the only surgeon in town, a lot of people would have to do without surgery to make the boycott work. Second, the majority of people in town either agree with his stand or don't care.Finally, he doesn't make policy himself, he has a group that lobbies for what they want. So a viable alternative strategy to a boycott is to form or join a counter group to oppose his group.Back to the real case of AOL Time Warner versus guns. If I quit Road Runner, I would do myself immediate and measurable harm versus a theoretical pin-prick against Time Warner. The AOL division of the corporation wouldn't even notice. My answer to the dilemma is that I joined the NRA and I may join other groups in the future to fight the groups that AOL supports. As soon as I have a viable alternative to Road Runner I'll consider it, but I'm not going to jeopardize my livelihood tilting at windmills. But I won't kid you, it wasn't an easy decision for me to get Road Runner and I understand how people who aren't in my situation might disagree with my decision.And finally, as I said before, there are a lot of companies that are supporting anti-freedom initiatives on many fronts. For example, Larry Ellison of Oracle (database software) is trying to put forward the idea of a national ID and database of all citizens. I won't buy his software personally, but Oracle software is behind a lot of web sites, maybe even this one. Should I investigate all web sites and boycott the ones that use Oracle?

AOL is Anti-Second Amendment .

Comments