Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

[A.Nonymous]

You can edit your posts, you know.

But then I'd get banned for trolling myself.

 

[TxGoat]

Reductio ad absurdum much?

Anyway, as has been stated before, employers have successfully blocked political speech and even religious speech in many cases from their property. They have every right to do so. I can stand up in a meeting and declare that my boss is a jerk. That's my First Amendment right. I've not done anything illegal. They can fire me before my ass hits the chair. That's also their right and they haven't done anything illegal.

Ever gone to a store where you walk through an inventory scanner when you enter/exit. The thing beeps if it doesn't like the theft control tag in your cart. You know what the store is doing? They're doing a search of your person. That's a Fourth Amendment thing right there. Their only suspicion that you might have stolen something is that you're in the store. You could easily argue that's an unreasonable search, but the store has every right to do that. If you don't want to submit to that search, don't go in the store. It's that simple.

But the Second Amendment should be the ONLY amendment that trumps all private property rights. Why?

I'm in agreement with you too, can you please edit your post?

 

[OstrichSaK]

On this particular topic, I think it's a little too much to ask employers to allow employees to carry concealed weapons on site. I've seen worker/manager meetings escalate to a point where a concealed weapon amid the tension would yield disastrous results.

This is all I need to hear from you to know that you have ZERO idea what it's like to carry a firearm and your ENTIRE argument is based on what you heard from the media, some anti-firearm nut or Hollywood about how these things work. If you truly think that people who carry are going to use their firearm to settle a dispute then you're touched in the head and I can't think of any other way to sugar coat that. There are WAY more people that conceal carry on a daily basis than you're aware of or willing to accept and if, just for a day, everyone who was concealing had a giant flag above their head you would lose your mind when you saw all of them since you think they're such a danger to everyone. If what you're saying is true then wouldn't people be using concealed weapons to settle arguments all the time instead of who often it currently happens... which is never. It literally has never happened.

My challenge to you and ANYONE who thinks this way: Get your permit and carry a concealed firearm for a month. It's easy to do an inexpensive and it's really hard to debate a topic when you literally know NOTHING about the side opposite your stance.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Actually, once again, I'm done with a 2a discussion on this forum because I'm debating with VERY misinformed individuals who refuse to look outside of their little box to see what the real world is like. It doesn't matter what I say they will continue to live in their fantasy land where everyone who carries a gun is a danger to everyone around them. Regardless of what information I present it won't change minds or even make the light flicker that's been burnt out for years. Good luck in life and I hope your strong stance against self defense is never challenged in real life because by then it will be too late to change your mind.

 

[Frisco]

This is all I need to hear from you to know that you have ZERO idea what it's like to carry a firearm and your ENTIRE argument is based on what you heard from the media, some anti-firearm nut or Hollywood about how these things work. If you truly think that people who carry are going to use their firearm to settle a dispute then you're touched in the head and I can't think of any other way to sugar coat that. There are WAY more people that conceal carry on a daily basis than you're aware of or willing to accept and if, just for a day, everyone who was concealing had a giant flag above their head you would lose your mind when you saw all of them since you think they're such a danger to everyone. If what you're saying is true then wouldn't people be using concealed weapons to settle arguments all the time instead of who often it currently happens... which is never. It literally has never happened.

My challenge to you and ANYONE who thinks this way: Get your permit and carry a concealed firearm for a month. It's easy to do an inexpensive and it's really hard to debate a topic when you literally know NOTHING about the side opposite your stance.

Darn I hate agreeing with you.

J/K

(except for the "..you're touched in the head.." part) I do agree, and the classes to acquire the permit lean heavily on your stated point.

In the first place, people who settle their issues with violence most often have an arrest record for that violence, which would disqualify them from even applying for the cc permit unless they lied on the "have you ever been arrested for a crime of violence?" The question is NOT, "have you ever been convicted," it is "have you ever been arrested?" Meaning, "have you ever gotten the attention of the police for being violent, conviction or not."

Lie on the app, then get busted for that falsifying once the FBI finger print enabled rap sheet comes back.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Actually, once again, I'm done with a 2a discussion on this forum because I'm debating with VERY misinformed individuals who refuse to look outside of their little box to see what the real world is like. It doesn't matter what I say they will continue to live in their fantasy land where everyone who carries a gun is a danger to everyone around them. Regardless of what information I present it won't change minds or even make the light flicker that's been burnt out for years. Good luck in life and I hope your strong stance against self defense is never challenged in real life because by then it will be too late to change your mind.

What information have you presented? You haven't cited a single statistic or source that I've seen. Your only argument has been "You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about."

If I'm misinformed, then please inform me. Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the Second Amendment trumps individuals property rights when no other amendment does. Tell me why those who carry concealed weapons are all highly skilled individuals who are highly trained in how to react safely in a crisis when that doesn't apply to any other skill people have. Tell me why employers insurance premiums are NOT going to to go up when they have armed employees running around. Please cite the facts or the reasoning to back up your opinions. Instead, you keep just saying over and over that everyone is wrong.

I've never gone to war. Therefore, by your logic, I can't argue that there is anything wrong with war. I'm a guy, therefore I can't have an opinion at all on abortion. Just because I've never owned or carried a firearm doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on concealed carry.

 

[IOWA]

Reductio ad absurdum much?

Anyway, as has been stated before, employers have successfully blocked political speech and even religious speech in many cases from their property. They have every right to do so. I can stand up in a meeting and declare that my boss is a jerk. That's my First Amendment right. I've not done anything illegal. They can fire me before my ass hits the chair. That's also their right and they haven't done anything illegal.

Ever gone to a store where you walk through an inventory scanner when you enter/exit. The thing beeps if it doesn't like the theft control tag in your cart. You know what the store is doing? They're doing a search of your person. That's a Fourth Amendment thing right there. Their only suspicion that you might have stolen something is that you're in the store. You could easily argue that's an unreasonable search, but the store has every right to do that. If you don't want to submit to that search, don't go in the store. It's that simple.

But the Second Amendment should be the ONLY amendment that trumps all private property rights. Why?

Actually no, stores do NOT have ANY right to search/detain you on the way out. None whatsoever. I've walked by plenty of them when they've asked me to stop. I just tell them "no thanks" and leave. Not much they can do about it.

 

[IOWA]

What information have you presented? You haven't cited a single statistic or source that I've seen. Your only argument has been "You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about."

If I'm misinformed, then please inform me. Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the Second Amendment trumps individuals property rights when no other amendment does. Tell me why those who carry concealed weapons are all highly skilled individuals who are highly trained in how to react safely in a crisis when that doesn't apply to any other skill people have. Tell me why employers insurance premiums are NOT going to to go up when they have armed employees running around. Please cite the facts or the reasoning to back up your opinions. Instead, you keep just saying over and over that everyone is wrong.

I've never gone to war. Therefore, by your logic, I can't argue that there is anything wrong with war. I'm a guy, therefore I can't have an opinion at all on abortion. Just because I've never owned or carried a firearm doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on concealed carry.

Private property rights do win here, and all they can do is ask you to leave. Freedom of speech? Can't be taken away anywhere.

I'll address your other nonsense when I get back to the computer.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Actually no, stores do NOT have ANY right to search/detain you on the way out. None whatsoever. I've walked by plenty of them when they've asked me to stop. I just tell them "no thanks" and leave. Not much they can do about it.

If you walk through the anti-theft devices at the front door, they're doing a search. If you set it off, they've got probable cause to detain you and treat you as a shoplifter.

 

[IOWA]

If you walk through the anti-theft devices at the front door, they're doing a search. If you set it off, they've got probable cause to detain you and treat you as a shoplifter.

It varies by state it appears, but the limitations are extremely strict. Hmph.

However, an alarm going off or saying no to the reciept checker is not ground for 'probable cause'. If some fool tried to detain me, he'd be seriously injured if he didn't have a badge, and id be well within my rights to defend myself.

 

[A.Nonymous]

It varies by state it appears, but the limitations are extremely strict. Hmph.

However, an alarm going off or saying no to the reciept checker is not ground for 'probable cause'. If some fool tried to detain me, he'd be seriously injured if he didn't have a badge, and id be well within my rights to defend myself.

The receipt checker who wants to rifle through your bags and the anti-theft devices at the door are two completely different things. I'm talking about things like these guys.

Basically, they're scanning your cart/person for any anti-theft devices. That's a search any way you want to look at it. You haven't done anything other than walk out of the store and they're doing a search. The fools who want to look at your receipt and look through your bags is another issue altogether. I think they can only look at your receipt for "price control" purposes. They want to make sure items rang up right. We all know that's not why they do it though. You blow off those guys, I'm on your side. You set off one of those anti-theft gates and don't come back and they're going to chase you down and consider you a shoplifter. If they have a security guard working there, they're going to go after you.

 

[IOWA]

The receipt checker who wants to rifle through your bags and the anti-theft devices at the door are two completely different things. I'm talking about things like these guys.

Basically, they're scanning your cart/person for any anti-theft devices. That's a search any way you want to look at it. You haven't done anything other than walk out of the store and they're doing a search. The fools who want to look at your receipt and look through your bags is another issue altogether. I think they can only look at your receipt for "price control" purposes. They want to make sure items rang up right. We all know that's not why they do it though. You blow off those guys, I'm on your side. You set off one of those anti-theft gates and don't come back and they're going to chase you down and consider you a shoplifter. If they have a security guard working there, they're going to go after you.

Let him come and be put in the ground. I claim self defense and sue the store.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Let him come and be put in the ground. I claim self defense and sue the store.

Some of the stores around here hire off duty cops as security guards. You might win a tussle with one of them, but you'd go to jail just for resisting. Even if they're just a garden variety rent a cop, I think you would have a hard time arguing self defense against a uniformed security officer who was trying to stop you after you set off an anti-theft device. I'm no lawyer, but I think that would be a hard argument to make. I'd buy it just because I hate rent-a-cops, but I don't know if a judge would.

 

[IOWA]

You're not allowed to go into a private home and start giving speeches.

You're not allowed to go into private businesses and protest.

Yes, you are. They can ask you to leave, but they can't stop you from speaking.

Many rulings have upheld businesses rights to limit political speech of any type in the business.

See above comment.

The 1st amendment is restricted all the time in private homes/businesses.

No it's not. Just the ability to be on the private property is restricted.

I love how gun owners always feel it's ok to override others privacy and property rights.

Override? How? If we're invited on to the property... If they tell you no guns, then no guns. Simple as that. I love how you lump everyone into one category as well. Gives you a lot of credibility. /s

If you don't like the businesses rules... don't work or shop there.

Yep.

I don't remember anyone... liberal or conservative... that belives you have a constitutional right to work at a particular job.

Who said that? It wasn't me.

You'll find my comments in red.

 

[IOWA]

Some of the stores around here hire off duty cops as security guards. You might win a tussle with one of them, but you'd go to jail just for resisting. Even if they're just a garden variety rent a cop, I think you would have a hard time arguing self defense against a uniformed security officer who was trying to stop you after you set off an anti-theft device. I'm no lawyer, but I think that would be a hard argument to make. I'd buy it just because I hate rent-a-cops, but I don't know if a judge would.

Why would I win? Because they have to prove for a fact that I stole something, which is impossible, because I don't steal. Not even police/peace officers are allowed to respond with any kind of force unless it's necessary.

Not to mention, when an officer is off-duty, he has no more authority than a regular citizen.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

You'll find my comments in red.

Congress shall make no law....

Government cannot resrict speech. private business CAN restrict speech. can i stop you from TALKING? not without gagging you, but kicking you out of my business for protesting IS restricting your speech.

 

[IOWA]

Congress shall make no law....

Government cannot resrict speech. private business CAN restrict speech. can i stop you from TALKING? not without gagging you, but kicking you out of my business for protesting IS restricting your speech.

No, it's not lol. It's restricting the ability to be on private property. There's a difference.

 

[TxGoat]

No, it's not lol. It's restricting the ability to be on private property. There's a difference.

People get fired all the time for posting things on Facebook. If an employer can fire people for posting on Facebook, then how do you think that employees are afforded their 1st amendment rights while at work? Facebook posts aren't even done at work most of the time.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

No, it's not lol. It's restricting the ability to be on private property. There's a difference.

I am as conservative as anyone ... but you are missing my point.

Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. Government is prohibited (generally) from restricting speech -not individuals. Talking is not speech either - it's just talking (and the government can't really stop that either, can they?)

Check this out:

Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others

 

[IOWA]

People get fired all the time for posting things on Facebook. If an employer can fire people for posting on Facebook, then how do you think that employees are afforded their 1st amendment rights while at work? Facebook posts aren't even done at work most of the time.

Just because we have free speech, doesn't mean there aren't consequences and responsibilities that go with them. Just like with any other freedom.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Just because we have free speech, doesn't mean there aren't consequences and responsibilities that go with them. Just like with any other freedom.

You have an absolute freedom to TALK. Yes, you have to suffer the consequences and responsibilities.

By your logic, you have the freedom to commit murder. Then you just have to suffer the consequences. Pretty extreme example - but nonetheless true.

Freedom of Speech is about that speech being protected - so those consequences are are limited or even non-existent.

Don't forget the first 5 words of the First Amendment ... especially the FIRST WORD.

 

[Frisco]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some states have done so on several of those freedom points. Certain words uttered to certain people will get a person jailed, for example.

 

[IOWA]

You have an absolute freedom to TALK. Yes, you have to suffer the consequences and responsibilities.

By your logic, you have the freedom to commit murder. Then you just have to suffer the consequences. Pretty extreme example - but nonetheless true.

Freedom of Speech is about that speech being protected - so those consequences are are limited or even non-existent.

Don't forget the first 5 words of the First Amendment ... especially the FIRST WORD.

We can run in circles all day over this. I can say whatever I want, anywhere I want unless it causes harm to someone else. There will be no legal consequences if I walk into Home Depot and chant "Home Depot sucks!" until they ask me to leave. Although the 1A is under attack now too, so that might soon change.

 

[TxGoat]

The bottom line is constitutional rights are NOT guaranteed at your place of employment. It would be nice if they were, but the bottom like is they're not. The rights are guaranteed by the government NOT your employer. If you read the amendments, it's obvious that they apply to you AND our government, not you and your employer.

1st Protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
2nd Protects an individual's right to bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
3rd Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers out of war time September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
11th Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795 Full text
12th Revises presidential election procedures December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804 Full text
13th Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865 Full text
14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868 Full text
15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870 Full text
16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913 Full text
17th Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913 Full text
18th Establishes Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919 Full text
19th Establishes women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920 Full text
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment" March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933 Full text
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933 Full text
22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms) March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951 Full text
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961 Full text
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964 Full text
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession July 6, 1965 February 10, 1967 Full text
26th Establishes the official voting age to be 18 years old. March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971 Full text
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress September 25, 1789 May 5 or 7, 1992[1] Full text

 

[IOWA]

The bottom line is constitutional rights are NOT guaranteed at your place of employment. It would be nice if they were, but the bottom like is they're not. The rights are guaranteed by the government NOT your employer. If you read the amendments, it's obvious that they apply to you AND our government, not you and your employer.

Depends on the state really. If it's "At-will" employment technically they can't fire you for saying something they don't like, but they can fire you just because they can.