Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Florida lawmakers pass take-your-guns-to-work law

  1. #1

    Florida lawmakers pass take-your-guns-to-work law

    "Poverty of the state exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished."
    Sun Tzu

    Restore The Republic.Org

    PokeTheEye.ORG



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I wonder if they define a person's car as an extension of a person's home/property?

    I'm all for Carrying, just wondering how they resolve the conflict with business owners' property/employment rights.

  4. #3
    ...........studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.
    Does this sound like BS to anybody else?

  5. #4
    I don't think it's COMPLETE BS... but you can see what the author wants to convey to the readers.

    consider this....

    I would guess that if you listed all the work places that allow guns (List 'A') next to a list of all the work places that don't allow them (List 'B'), the majority of us would prefer to work for a company listed in 'List B.'

    so as for the quote sited above:

    maybe it's the neighborhood, maybe it's the job description, but, for the most part, it's not because the people carrying them go on shooting sprees.
    Last edited by maeqFREEDOMfree; 04-09-2008 at 02:07 PM.

  6. #5
    No. Police and some security guards are allowed to carry guns. There are a lot of deaths there.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Does this sound like BS to anybody else?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CountryboyRonPaul View Post
    I wonder if they define a person's car as an extension of a person's home/property?

    I'm all for Carrying, just wondering how they resolve the conflict with business owners' property/employment rights.
    People I've talked to who support these measures don't care about the conflict. They think their right to go armed supercedes private property rights. Some have explicitly indicated that once they get these bills passed they'll go the rest of the way and forbid employers from telling employees they can't go armed. Home owners and other private property owners can't be far behind.

    It's a horrid affront to real liberty and personal responsibility. If you don't like your employer's practices, work somewhere else (the gun ban was one reason I quit my last job).

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by jblosser View Post
    ...It's a horrid affront to real liberty and personal responsibility. If you don't like your employer's practices, work somewhere else (the gun ban was one reason I quit my last job).
    +1

  9. #8
    When they start passing laws people just won't follow, they will make criminals out of the majority of the public.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jblosser View Post
    People I've talked to who support these measures don't care about the conflict. They think their right to go armed supercedes private property rights. Some have explicitly indicated that once they get these bills passed they'll go the rest of the way and forbid employers from telling employees they can't go armed. Home owners and other private property owners can't be far behind.

    It's a horrid affront to real liberty and personal responsibility. If you don't like your employer's practices, work somewhere else (the gun ban was one reason I quit my last job).
    Not so fast.

    A corporation protected by the state for limited liability is not exercising property rights when it disarms it's employees.

    There are two kinds of libertarianism in this subject: educated and brainless. Brainless says "it's their property and they can do what they want".

    Wrong. If said property is accessible to outside entities, individuals, then a CORPORATION has no INDIVIDUAL rights. This is where many so-called libertarians fall on their own swords. Saying that a company that openly hires INDIVIDUALS from the general public has rights as a CORPORATION is not en exercise in private property rights.

    How many of these places that threaten to fire people for having a gun in their car can be held fully accountable for those employees who are attacked on that property? Indeed there is no statute or clause that states a company can be sued by an employee attacked in the parking lot by a third party. Sure some can try but I suspect corporations do not insure against that specifically and few judges would frown against those that fight such a lawsuit.

    Yet it was perfectly OK to sue gun makers for actions of a third party? See the double standard here? Again the brainless libertarian, not knowing a thing about liability, limited liability of a corporation, and individual rights (which is what the Constitution is all about) versus rights of a corporation (which are not garunteed and exist only under government statute) goes off thinking this law is an infringment on private property rights.

    In this case the state is siding with INDIVIDUAL rights over rights of a CORPORATION. Which is what we institute the Constitution for. There is not Corporate Bill of Rights, is there? There was no need for one.

    But I suppose there are people who think there should be. They are easy to find: they think that as long as you can own a business, America is still free. Even if that was the only thing you could do even after surviving the red tape and fees. They think China is free too. Perhaps totalitarian regimes are exercising their private property rights?

    There is the folly when organizations, governments, corporations, etc, are considered as having "rights". Only Individuals have garanteed rights, and let's not forget that.

    And for all those who think this is an infringment, I suppose the ADA and other laws forcing employers to hire people of race, gender, or religion that they don't want should also be considered an infringment as well. Where were these champions of property rights all these years?

    I guess even so-called libertarians can have a double standard when it comes to rights. Always OK to $#@! on guns, eh?


    TRUE private property, not used for public function or business, can be said to be under total control of the INDIVIDUAL who owns it. That person has the right to make you leave your guns at home when you visit. But you can also sue that person with more leg to stand on in court if anything happens to you as a result of being disarmed.

    So get it straight, people. Admit you were wrong for siding with corporations that have no individual rights, and against individual rights which are inalienable and protected by natural law and the Constitution.

    Meanwhile, there are 22000 students who want to be able to carry their guns on campus. Want to be the next victim of the CIAs next mind-control subject, who will likely strike right before the next big gun bill?

    I suppose the universitys are exercising their private property rights, even though they are attended by individuals and run by a board.

    But hey, where have rights of a corporation prevented anyone from dying while hiding under a desk begging to God to be saved? It was the private property rights of a corporation, like VT, that ensured the deaths of 32 students.

    I guess that's alright then. Even though a year earlier they expelled a student with a CCWP who was caught with a gun. Oh well. Gotta obey the rights of the corporation, and cower under the desk and cry like a little girly.

    How about those shopping malls? Open to the public but oh wait, the few trustees or the wife of the guy who owns the development COMPANY who saw something on Oprah about how bad guns are pesters him to make it a gun free zone. Same thing, you can cry hiding under a table in the food court because the company has private property rights, even though that property is owned by a company that opens it to the public and did has ZERO liability to the safety of the people in it, even though there is no law requiring they disarm. But hey that's what people want, right?

    And if you don't like it, then dont go to college and spend the rest of your life making less than 40K a year. It's all for property rights of entities that were never to have power over individual rights anyway.

    I recommend some of you reread Ron Pauls writings about individual rights. You need a refresher.
    Last edited by Doktor_Jeep; 04-09-2008 at 09:25 PM.
    If this should be, our final stand,
    we will stand together with pride
    We will honour the past, and fight to the last,
    it will be a good way to die
    It matters not, if the cause is lost,
    and we can not stop the tide
    We will fight to the end, and then fight again,
    it will be a good way to die

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by CountryboyRonPaul View Post
    I wonder if they define a person's car as an extension of a person's home/property?

    I'm all for Carrying, just wondering how they resolve the conflict with business owners' property/employment rights.
    Simple.
    INDIVIDUALS have rights. CORPORATIONS do not.

    Or I suppose Haliburton has more rights than we do? Or is that what we want?
    If this should be, our final stand,
    we will stand together with pride
    We will honour the past, and fight to the last,
    it will be a good way to die
    It matters not, if the cause is lost,
    and we can not stop the tide
    We will fight to the end, and then fight again,
    it will be a good way to die

  13. #11
    Yay, i'm in florida and have not been allowed to leave my gun in my car (despite having a concealed weapons permit).

    Course, i still can't. One of the disadvantages of working on a military installation.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor_Jeep View Post
    Simple.
    INDIVIDUALS have rights. CORPORATIONS do not.

    Or I suppose Haliburton has more rights than we do? Or is that what we want?
    do you apply this to even privately owned companies?
    I just think if a person starts a company and builds it themself from the bottom up, they (the owner) should be able to hire whom ever they want for whatever reasons they want.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by maeqFREEDOMfree View Post
    do you apply this to even privately owned companies?
    I just think if a person starts a company and builds it themself from the bottom up, they (the owner) should be able to hire whom ever they want for whatever reasons they want.
    I disagree on the grounds that if the owner fires someone for being a ****, or something like that, the full weight of the civil rights movement comes down on him.

    But it was always ok, by the same people, to piss on gun owners.

    Yes in an environment where:

    FULL rights are adhered to which means if you can fire the gun owner, you can also fire the home or cross dresser, not hire the black, etc, and whatever you want in the boundaries of your property goes

    AND

    When you disarm someone for being on your property you assume full liability for the safety of those disarmed.

    You know how it has been now for a while, haven't you?

    Again, individuals have rights that trump corporations, because corporations endure existence at behest of the state, and enjoy some levels of limited liability. A corporation cannot tell people how to live and then give them the choice of accepting it or going without a job. It's no better when the universities all get together and make their campuses gun free zones, and everybody has to make a choice of adhering OR spending their life earning pesos.

    And the sad part is the quislings who worked their way into various boardrooms and trustee positions are programmed to be socialists and anti-gun.

    For once we can celebrate a new law that actually protects an individual right, which is extremely rare these days.
    If this should be, our final stand,
    we will stand together with pride
    We will honour the past, and fight to the last,
    it will be a good way to die
    It matters not, if the cause is lost,
    and we can not stop the tide
    We will fight to the end, and then fight again,
    it will be a good way to die



Similar Threads

  1. Massachusetts Lawmakers Pass Bill Tightening State Gun Laws
    By tommyrp12 in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2014, 07:10 AM
  2. Ron Paul - US Lawmakers Don’t Abide by Laws They Pass
    By DamianTV in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 05:52 PM
  3. Russian Lawmakers Pass Ban on Adoptions to US
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-28-2012, 10:32 PM
  4. Calif. lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history in schools
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 07-11-2011, 11:07 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2011, 04:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •