Tndeer Logo

Page 6 of 9 « First<45678>Last »
Topic Options
#3141595 - 01/27/13 06:49 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: arctic_cat]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9432
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: arctic_cat
Yup, and I work on a D.O.E site in Oak Ridge, you better not even joke about having one in your car or its going to get searched


Contingent to your access to ANY nuke site in the US, you sign something waiving your right to search on any nuke facility. I believe it is also codified in law preventing firearms within the confines of ANY "protected area" of a nuke facility.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3141656 - 01/27/13 07:32 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


To try and shift the blame or responsibility to someone else is an exercise in dishonesty, and I challenge you to find the flaw in what I just said.


Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried. You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141813 - 01/27/13 09:22 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Bells

Offline
Does the assemblage think that a business owner should be able to deny an employee the ability to keep a set of golf clubs in their trunk, a baseball bat, a hunting knife, or a Bible? Should a store owner be able to preclude you from keeping a Republican or Democrat position paper in your vehicle while shopping in the mall. Basically if we are to understand and side with DRM, then any business owner could demand to violate your Federal 4th and State 7th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure at their whim. If that be the case why not allow them to simply pull out a 9mm and shoot the next individual they did not agree with, or simply because they did not like the way that person combed their hair? Is it not their land?

My point is, that any item that is LEGAL for you to possess in the middle of the street should be LEGAL for you to keep in the trunk or glove box of your car, where ever you have a right to be, if you are not involved in criminal activity.

Our whole Republic is based on Constitutional principals, the straw man argument is that the Constitution ONLY restrains the government. That is ludicrous, every Public Chapter (law) in Tennessee is based upon, and measured against the Constitution, each find their basis in, and is required to be measured against it to stay in place, hence the need and reasons for Courts, to apply those Public Chapters.

To surmise that ownership of property gives one the ultimate control of everyone who steps upon it is ridiculous. Our peers demand we give up our property every time we purchase anything and pay a tax. We receive summonses from our peers to take our property when we pay tax on it (property) as well. The codes that require setbacks from communal property lines are a control by our peers through government, yet we understand the need for certain encroachments on the absolute control over a specific piece of ground by an individual who may have paid a price for title to that particular spot of ground. If a lead smelter was proffered as your next door neighbor, I am sure you would be glad of codes which preclude the ability to build one just anywhere, yet there are some who wave the banner of absolute freedom to control what happens on "their" property. We have government to keep that crap from happening.

There is no Constitutional guarantee that you can do whatever you want with your personal property, there is one for the Citizen to keep and bear arms for their common defense, our Supreme Court has written that it is an individual Right. there is no limit as to where in either the Union 2nd Amendment nor the State Article 1 Section 26, the restrictions are given to the legislature to apply, and not a business owner.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141923 - 01/27/13 11:11 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 15979
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
Well stated worriedman.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3142139 - 01/28/13 08:48 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 43854
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


To try and shift the blame or responsibility to someone else is an exercise in dishonesty, and I challenge you to find the flaw in what I just said.


Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried. You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.



This is it, in a nutshell.
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3142159 - 01/28/13 09:02 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried.


Private citizens can't ask someone to leave their own property if they have a gun? I think you're a bit confused.

I am 100% in line with the Constitution, thanks. I'm just not in line with using the government to take someone else's rights away just because I want something.


 Quote:
You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.


What exactly am I dancing around? I really am not worried about lawsuits, I am worried about people using the government to take away property rights BY FORCE.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142175 - 01/28/13 09:15 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Does the assemblage think that a business owner should be able to deny an employee the ability to keep a set of golf clubs in their trunk, a baseball bat, a hunting knife, or a Bible?


Actually, I think a property owner should be able to ask a person to leave their property for any reason, period. And I challenge you to find issue with that position in regards to the Constitution.

 Quote:
Basically if we are to understand and side with DRM, then any business owner could demand to violate your Federal 4th and State 7th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure at their whim.


No, you are a bit confused. The 4th ans 7th Amendments are a contract between YOU and your GOVERNMENT, not YOU and I. This is Constitutional Basics 101, friend... You need to re-think your position.

Regardless, I never said anything about search or seizure, did I? Yet another flawed argument.

What I did say is that a property owner (individual or business) should have the same property rights - and that is to ask anyone to leave their property.

Look at it this way.

I come over to your house for dinner. You ask me if I have a gun in my car, I refuse to answer. You do not wants guns on your property, and you ask me to leave.

Should the government be able to take away your right to ask me to leave?

If not, then why do you want to take another man's right to that same thing, just because his property houses a "business"?

My position is 100% consistent.



 Quote:
If that be the case why not allow them to simply pull out a 9mm and shoot the next individual they did not agree with, or simply because they did not like the way that person combed their hair? Is it not their land?


This is you being absurd. Let's try to stick to reasonable discussion, shall we?

 Quote:
My point is, that any item that is LEGAL for you to possess in the middle of the street should be LEGAL for you to keep in the trunk or glove box of your car, where ever you have a right to be, if you are not involved in criminal activity.


That all depends on whose PROPERTY your car happens to be parked, now doesn't it? I already addressed this above.

 Quote:
the straw man argument is that the Constitution ONLY restrains the government. That is ludicrous,


First, you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is, because you surely did not apply it correctly here.
Second, the First Ten Amendments are most assuredly enumerated restrains on GOVERNMENT. This is fact.

 Quote:
To surmise that ownership of property gives one the ultimate control of everyone who steps upon it is ridiculous.


It is? Based on what criteria? I challenge you to find any of the Founding Fathers who disagree with my position.


 Quote:
There is no Constitutional guarantee that you can do whatever you want with your personal property, there is one for the Citizen to keep and bear arms for their common defense,


Nothing I have stated contradicts or goes against the 2nd Amendment.

But for you to assert than you have RIGHT to carry a gun on someone's property regardless of their will is incorrect, and to assume that the founding fathers would support this notion is absurd.

As a matter of fact, the raised quite a stink about the FORCED housing of soldiers and their arms.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142263 - 01/28/13 10:19 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


Actually, I think a property owner should be able to ask a person to leave their property for any reason, period. And I challenge you to find issue with that position in regards to the Constitution.



Pruneyard, (though I am sure just because the Courts decided that a person's free speech Rights which are guaranteed to a greater extent by California law than in the 1st Union Amendment, you will discount it), in which case the students seeking signatures on their petitions on another's "property" were allowed to continue.

It is obvious that facts and case law are of no value in a discussion with you.

 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


Nothing I have stated contradicts or goes against the 2nd Amendment.



Actually, none of the issues related to this discussion have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, as it simply states that the Federal government has no say regarding the issue at hand, as their ONLY charge related to firearms is to "not" infringe the ability of legally allowed citizens to keep and bear them.

Rather, it is an issue for the State to decide. Article 1 Section 26 of our State Declaration of Rights:

“That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”

is the only clause that has any bearing on this discussion, as it is THE operative clause with merit about the issue.

You have failed to show where the Constitution of either the Union or the State give unequivocal control of every aspect of life simply by merit of ownership, where I have shown numerous instances where your neighbors, or any facet of government may modify an owner's ability to use said property as one might wish, to the extent of taking it at their discretion.

If your ability to exert control over private property is so expansive, I guess you think you can take any game animal that crosses your property as you deem reasonable, or does the jury of your peers that gives the various regulatory authorities control give you as much heartburn as allowing a fellow citizen to use the best tools available to provide for the defense of their God given life?
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3142600 - 01/28/13 02:54 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman

Pruneyard, (though I am sure just because the Courts decided that a person's free speech Rights which are guaranteed to a greater extent by California law than in the 1st Union Amendment, you will discount it), in which case the students seeking signatures on their petitions on another's "property" were allowed to continue.


What does this have to do with my opinion? Notice I didn't say that is the way it is currently interpreted, merely my opinion on property rights.

 Quote:
It is obvious that facts and case law are of no value in a discussion with you.


What are you talking about now?


 Quote:
You have failed to show where the Constitution of either the Union or the State give unequivocal control of every aspect of life simply by merit of ownership,


Again what are you talking about "every aspect of life"? Do you talk in circles like this in person, or just the internet?

Try to focus on the subject at hand: guns and property rights.

 Quote:
allowing a fellow citizen to use the best tools available to provide for the defense of their God given life?


I am going to ignore the rest of your rambling wordy response and try to keep this focused:

The point I made was that the argument used ("the business/property owner is taking away someone's right to protect themselves") is flawed, and incorrect.

Nobody is forcing you to remain on someone else's property after they inform you guns are not allowed.

Do you understand this or not, so we can move on to other issues?


Edited by -DRM- (01/28/13 02:54 PM)
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142634 - 01/28/13 03:21 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1410
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
I guess it comes down to how the law is determined to be worded.

Is the gun "in" your private property by being in your car.

Or is the gun "on" the business owners property since the car is parked there.

I hate that arguement that someone can just quit thier job if they don't like a business owners personal polices.

I've kind of read this thread, but let me ask -DRM- this, is it okay for a business owner to tell his employees they are not allowed to have political bumper stickers? Those stickers would be on his property? If so what makes the 1st Amendment more important the the 2nd Amendment? If not, then what you are saying is that the Consitution only applies when on public property?

I like the way Wisconsin created thier CC law. I've already said how it goes. If a business owner puts the sign out for no weapons allowed, they are liable for any violent crimes committed on thier property, since have taken away the individuals right to protect themselves. On that same note, only the gun owner is liable for injuries with thier gun on a property that allows CC.

Then again Wisconsins law decided the the car was more private property than the parking lot of the business owner, so it's all moot there.
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

"Recon Ready"
Airborne and Air Assault Blood Wings Worn Here

Top
Page 6 of 9 « First<45678>Last »


Moderator:  RUGER, Unicam, gtk, Tennessee Todd, Lakeland Charlie, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, TurkeyBurd, MAN, Bobby G, Kimber45, Crappie Luck 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4104911
RUGER
86357
Deer Assassin
64852
BSK
60536
Crappie Luck
51375
spitndrum
Newest Members
purrpplee, tnduckhunter, draw2drop, Oh Deer, Deer slayer85
13112 Registered Users
Who's Online
92 registered (Cooter, Outdoor Enthusiast, Wrangler95, mikanch, FISH, griz01, 17 invisible) and 118 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13112 Members
42 Forums
89310 Topics
1044511 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
July
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.214 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression enabled.