In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
If my family is hungry, and you have the only job in town, then that makes you ruler.ehhh ?
I reckon I will continue to ensure MY OWN safety.and not depend upon you to do so.
I can go along with nearly ANY `personal property' argument.
EXCEPT THIS ONE.
I have come to believe that personal defense and `Shall Not Be Infringed' trumps hopolophobia.
If I am wrong..at least I will be alive to admit it.
HB, a business is not there to supply jobs to potential employees, it is there to make money.
I honestly would never have expected you to fall on this side of the topic, but so be it.
One can come up with any scenario they desire to justify circumventing the rights of property owners, hell the government does it all the time with emminent domain. Just because you can present what is, at least to you, a legitimate scenario that justify's it to your satisfaction , it does not make it so.
What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
quote:Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.
Just because a business grows does not mean that you give up control. You hire someone who is willing to work within the confines of the rules you set forth, within reason.
A man from the outside cannot come on your property and force thier ideals and rules down your throat, citizen to citizen, but you can set the rules for them.
I personally have no contempt for those needing work HB, it shows that you do not know me at all. Nor have I ever, nor would I ever tell anyone who works for me that they could not carry a firearm. None of this changes the fact that a person who owns the property another comes to work for them cannot. I find the practice wrong, and degrading, but they are still within their rights, constitutionally, and legally.
For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
quote:For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.
aye, but I think you would know me better than to think I would deny another man the right to their defense. I changed my name, this is Todesengel.
I must play devils advocate on some things, even if I do not agree with the principle. I am in all or nothing for our constitution, and that means I have to support the document, even in parts I do not agree with
Collectivists would have us believe that we are under the power or control of government or of our employers. In fact, employment contracts in America today are contracts between equals. Each individual is in a position to accept the conditions imposed by the other, and is likewise in a position to reject those conditions. Employment occurs when a mutually acceptable arrangement is agreed.
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Collectivists would have us believe that we are under the power or control of government or of our employers. In fact, employment contracts in America today are contracts between equals. Each individual is in a position to accept the conditions imposed by the other, and is likewise in a position to reject those conditions. Employment occurs when a mutually acceptable arrangement is agreed.
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.
Thank you. I wish I had the ability to break it down as organized, and clearly as you do
I could agree with you gentlemen.IF the culture were sane. IF the truly insane were few and far between.
IF the businesses that prohibited were driven speedily OUT of business for their anti-social behavior by decent citizens depriving them of the support of their dollars.
At that point.people wishing to work for or patronize them do so at their own chosen peril.PLUS facing the contempt and scorn and derision of more balanced individuals of society.
Perhaps I will break this down further ;
Pre-Apocalypse ; (right now)
An insane society, driven by madmen and compliant citizenry, with no tools available to the remnants save civil disobedience ;
Post-Apocalypse ;
A society that has re-gained freedom, and anxious to keep it.
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Now, you all may draw and quarter me, accuse me of doing the exact same thing as the government seeks to do ; Impose MY values on another.
When it comes to THIS ONE AMENDMENT.you damn betcha I do.
THAT is the importance I place on THIS AMENDMENT.
I am prepared to defend my position in the Councils...AFTER the war.
You gentlemen come prepared to defend YOUR positions.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Exactly, HB, on all counts.
The only distinction that I make is that there are, and should be, consequences to actions. Carrying where prohibited, if discovered, will result in one being asked to leave. If one does not leave, he is trespassing, and then (and only then) does it move from being between them alone.
While I agree with you that individuals who seek to disarm their employees and customers are enemies to those people's freedom and safety, I cannot see a way in which they do not have the right to be that enemy.
Don
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:The only distinction that I make is that there are, and should be, consequences to actions. Carrying where prohibited, if discovered, will result in one being asked to leave. If one does not leave, he is trespassing, and then (and only then) does it move from being between them alone.
Absolutely.
I cannot disagree with this a bit...not one bit.
As gentlemen of character do..we find areas of agreement and work from there.
Something I am missing here or just didn't catch. When one opens a business as a private individual with himself as the sole employee, that individual retains his rights. When it/they become a business, they are surrendered. A business is not an entity that retains rights of any kind. Rights can only be retained by an individual. Powers and priviledges are retained by businesses and government.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
Something I am missing here or just didn't catch. When one opens a business as a private individual with himself as the sole employee, that individual retains his rights. When it/they become a business, they are surrendered. A business is not an entity that retains rights of any kind. Rights can only be retained by an individual. Powers and priviledges are retained by businesses and government.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.
If that was true there would be no such thing as insubordination.
There would be no such thing as a dress code
There would be no such thing as required id
There would be no such thing as restricted smoke areas
There would be no such thing as conduct codes
You are incorrect sir, sorry. The owners of a property make th rules, not those on said property who are under employment of the owners
Comments
If my family is hungry, and you have the only job in town, then that makes you ruler.ehhh ?
I reckon I will continue to ensure MY OWN safety.and not depend upon you to do so.
I can go along with nearly ANY `personal property' argument.
EXCEPT THIS ONE.
I have come to believe that personal defense and `Shall Not Be Infringed' trumps hopolophobia.
If I am wrong..at least I will be alive to admit it.
HB, a business is not there to supply jobs to potential employees, it is there to make money.
I honestly would never have expected you to fall on this side of the topic, but so be it.
One can come up with any scenario they desire to justify circumventing the rights of property owners, hell the government does it all the time with emminent domain. Just because you can present what is, at least to you, a legitimate scenario that justify's it to your satisfaction , it does not make it so.
What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.
quote:Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.
Just because a business grows does not mean that you give up control. You hire someone who is willing to work within the confines of the rules you set forth, within reason.
A man from the outside cannot come on your property and force thier ideals and rules down your throat, citizen to citizen, but you can set the rules for them.
I personally have no contempt for those needing work HB, it shows that you do not know me at all. Nor have I ever, nor would I ever tell anyone who works for me that they could not carry a firearm. None of this changes the fact that a person who owns the property another comes to work for them cannot. I find the practice wrong, and degrading, but they are still within their rights, constitutionally, and legally.
For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.
quote:For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.
aye, but I think you would know me better than to think I would deny another man the right to their defense. I changed my name, this is Todesengel.
I must play devils advocate on some things, even if I do not agree with the principle. I am in all or nothing for our constitution, and that means I have to support the document, even in parts I do not agree with
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.
Brad Steele
Collectivists would have us believe that we are under the power or control of government or of our employers. In fact, employment contracts in America today are contracts between equals. Each individual is in a position to accept the conditions imposed by the other, and is likewise in a position to reject those conditions. Employment occurs when a mutually acceptable arrangement is agreed.
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.
Thank you. I wish I had the ability to break it down as organized, and clearly as you do
IF the businesses that prohibited were driven speedily OUT of business for their anti-social behavior by decent citizens depriving them of the support of their dollars.
At that point.people wishing to work for or patronize them do so at their own chosen peril.PLUS facing the contempt and scorn and derision of more balanced individuals of society.
Perhaps I will break this down further ;
Pre-Apocalypse ; (right now)
An insane society, driven by madmen and compliant citizenry, with no tools available to the remnants save civil disobedience ;
Post-Apocalypse ;
A society that has re-gained freedom, and anxious to keep it.
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Now, you all may draw and quarter me, accuse me of doing the exact same thing as the government seeks to do ; Impose MY values on another.
When it comes to THIS ONE AMENDMENT.you damn betcha I do.
THAT is the importance I place on THIS AMENDMENT.
I am prepared to defend my position in the Councils...AFTER the war.
You gentlemen come prepared to defend YOUR positions.
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Exactly, HB, on all counts.
The only distinction that I make is that there are, and should be, consequences to actions. Carrying where prohibited, if discovered, will result in one being asked to leave. If one does not leave, he is trespassing, and then (and only then) does it move from being between them alone.
While I agree with you that individuals who seek to disarm their employees and customers are enemies to those people's freedom and safety, I cannot see a way in which they do not have the right to be that enemy.
Don
Brad Steele
Absolutely.
I cannot disagree with this a bit...not one bit.
As gentlemen of character do..we find areas of agreement and work from there.
Whatever, man. He pays well and I can lock it in my truck.
It used to irk me, but I love my job.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.
Something I am missing here or just didn't catch. When one opens a business as a private individual with himself as the sole employee, that individual retains his rights. When it/they become a business, they are surrendered. A business is not an entity that retains rights of any kind. Rights can only be retained by an individual. Powers and priviledges are retained by businesses and government.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.
If that was true there would be no such thing as insubordination.
There would be no such thing as a dress code
There would be no such thing as required id
There would be no such thing as restricted smoke areas
There would be no such thing as conduct codes
You are incorrect sir, sorry. The owners of a property make th rules, not those on said property who are under employment of the owners