CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut


Boycott Pizza Hut Nationwide


  • Total voters
    64

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
It's unfortunate that the deliveryman was fired, especially since he could have been killed had he not violated the company's policy. However, I'm not voting in this poll because as much as I dislike what Pizza Hut did, I still enjoy their pizza and will continue eating their pizzas.

If others want to boycott Pizza Hut, let them, but I won't, especially since technically, this was a company policy that presumably, the employee was aware of prior to the incident, so it's not as if it was sprung on him surprisingly.

Secondly, yes, his 2A rights were violated, but while on company time, he is supposed to follow company rules; he already knew that he risked losing his job, yet he took a chance anyway. Besides, he got away with his life and he wasn't arrested; as far as I'm concerned, his life is more important than the job.

Finally, just because I refuse to support a boycott of Pizza Hut, that does not make me an Obama supporter. My rights weren't violated; furthermore, I enjoy their pizza. So yes, as long as my rights aren't jeopardized, I will continue to patronize Pizza Hut.
 

Bohemian

New member
it's Unfortunate That The Deliveryman Was Fired, Especially Since He Could Have Been Killed Had He Not Violated The Company's Policy. However, I'm Not Voting In This Poll Because As Much As I Dislike What Pizza Hut Did, I Still Enjoy Their Pizza And Will Continue Eating Their Pizzas.

If Others Want To Boycott Pizza Hut, Let Them, But I Won't, Especially Since Technically, This Was A Company Policy That Presumably, The Employee Was Aware Of Prior To The Incident, So It's Not As If It Was Sprung On Him Surprisingly.

Secondly, Yes, His 2a Rights Were Violated, But While On Company Time, He Is Supposed To Follow Company Rules; He Already Knew That He Risked Losing His Job, Yet He Took A Chance Anyway. Besides, He Got Away With His Life And He Wasn't Arrested; As Far As I'm Concerned, His Life Is More Important Than The Job.

Finally, Just Because I Refuse To Support A Boycott Of Pizza Hut, That Does Not Make Me An Obama Supporter. My Rights Weren't Violated; Furthermore, I Enjoy Their Pizza. So Yes, As Long As My Rights Aren't Jeopardized, I Will Continue To Patronize Pizza Hut.

If You Don't Oppose The Antis You Are Supporting Them; This Is The Attitude That Got Us All The Jacked Up Gun Legislation To Begin With...
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do these corporations and some individuals responding to this thread not understand?

You can not read any thing else into it...

Link Removed

NRA-ILA ::

Link Removed

If you fail to oppose any and all anti-gun measures, bans, etc., public and private, government, city, state or other municipality, you are supporting them and you may as well register to vote democrat and openly support Barack Hussein Obama, Billary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, et. al.,[/FONT] instead of closet support by your non-action(s); as you clearly fail to comprehend your fundamental, inalienable, god given right to defend yourself, your family, friends, neighbors, peers etc., by any means necessary, anywhere, anytime, any place; reaffirmed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing... George Washington

What you don't understand is that no individual's Constitutional rights trump a private company's or private property owner's property rights. If someone wants me to leave their property for using profanity, they have every right to make me do so and have me arrested for trespassing if I refuse. The same goes for someone working for an employer who does not want employees carrying guns while on company time. Just like the company has the right to regulate that, people have the right to choose not to work there because of it. An individual's constitutional rights end where a property owner's rights begin. For you to say that respecting a private property owner's right to keep guns off their property makes me no better than the Democrats you made reference to shows just how little understanding and respect you have for the rights of property owners to administer their property however they see fit.
 

Bohemian

New member
What you don't understand is that no individual's Constitutional rights trump a private company's or private property owner's property rights. If someone wants me to leave their property for using profanity, they have every right to make me do so and have me arrested for trespassing if I refuse. The same goes for someone working for an employer who does not want employees carrying guns while on company time. Just like the company has the right to regulate that, people have the right to choose not to work there because of it. An individual's constitutional rights end where a property owner's rights begin. For you to say that respecting a private property owner's right to keep guns off their property makes me no better than the Democrats you made reference to shows just how little understanding and respect you have for the rights of property owners to administer their property however they see fit.

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Just because it has not been challenged does not make it legal...

The right to defend yourself is inherent, you are born with it...
It is reaffirmed by the Second Amendment, AS INALIENABLE...

Link Removed
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Just because it has not been challenged does not make it legal...

The right to defend yourself is inherent, you are born with it...
It is reaffirmed by the Second Amendment, AS INALIENABLE...

Link Removed

Unabridged 2A does not and cannot trump unabridged private property rights.
 

Bohemian

New member
Unabridged 2A does not and cannot trump unabridged private property rights.

NO PUBLIC/PRIVATE COMPANY/AGENCY ETC., CAN DEPRIVE AN INDIVIDUAL OF THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES...

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

BY NOBODY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...

Yes, if you are on an individual or companies private private property, and you are legally carrying and they happen to notice and they ask you not to and you refuse, the only recourse they have is to ask you to leave, if you don't you can be arrested for trespassing; but not for carrying on their property EVEN IF THEY HAVE IT POSTED, IT IS UNENFORCEABLE BY LAW...
Further, the pizza hut driver was a 10 year + manager level employee and was not notified of the changes to corporate company policy until after he violated it and was terminated despite the circumstances of not being in a company vehicle, not being on company property and not being aware of the egregious policy he violated...

In spite of all of that I hold that no body can legally prevent you from defending your life by any means necessary, any place, any time; THE DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE TRUMPS ANY BODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANY MISGUIDED LAWS, CORPORATE POLICES REAL OR IMAGINED...

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA LOST ON THIS ONE IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE AS A STATE LEGISLATOR ...

To not openly denounce Pizza Hut for this, is offensive to all that hold the Second Amendment dear...

And it equates to supporting the Anti's...

They only do what we let them do...

If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...

Link Removed

NRA-ILA ::

Barack Obama -- GOA 2008 Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
NO PUBLIC/PRIVATE COMPANY/AGENCY ETC., CAN DEPRIVE AN INDIVIDUAL OF THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES...

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

BY NOBODY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...

Yes, if you are on an individual or companies private private property, and you are legally carrying and they happen to notice and they ask you not to and you refuse, the only recourse they have is to ask you to leave, if you don't you can be arrested for trespassing; but not for carrying on their property EVEN IF THEY HAVE IT POSTED, IT IS UNENFORCEABLE BY LAW...
Further, the pizza hut driver was a 10 year + manager level employee and was not notified of the changes to corporate company policy until after he violated it and was terminated despite the circumstances of not being in a company vehicle, not being on company property and not being aware of the egregious policy he violated...

In spite of all of that I hold that no body can legally prevent you from defending your life by any means necessary, any place, any time; THE DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE TRUMPS ANY BODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANY MISGUIDED LAWS, CORPORATE POLICES REAL OR IMAGINED...

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA LOST ON THIS ONE IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE AS A STATE LEGISLATOR ...

To not openly denounce Pizza Hut for this, is offensive to all that hold the Second Amendment dear...

And it equates to supporting the Anti's...

They only do what we let them do...

If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...

Link Removed

NRA-ILA ::

Barack Obama -- GOA 2008 Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment

Again, you're wrong. If I, a property owner, don't want people with guns on MY property, which I'm paying taxes on, then that is MY choice, just like you can choose not to come onto my property because of it.

Yes, you're right that carrying guns or doing anything on MY property that I don't approve of, as long as the behavior itself isn't against the law, is not something you can get arrested for (unless you're trespassing, which is not a gun law violation), which I never wrote to begin with. As for your assertion that no one, including a property owner, can prevent you from having the tools of self defense at your disposal, yes he can, if it's on HIS property.

Finally, if you, I, or anyone else is on private property where the RKBA is not respected, we also have the right to request that our safety be provided for while on that property. If that safety is in any way compromised, we have the right to sue that property owner.

Basically what I'm saying is, if we want private companies and private property owners to respect our RKBA, we should not pass laws requiring them to allow guns per se. What I"m saying is, if they choose not to allow anyone to carry, they should be liable for any injuries to our persons that occur while on their property that could have been prevented had the person been carrying. I can guarantee that if this is the approach we take, all anti gun signs and anti gun policies will go away; no property owner wants to be held liable for any injuries people sustain on their property that could have been prevented had they been carrying.

This is the only way I can think of that everyone's rights are respected. Can you think of something better?
 

Bohemian

New member
Again, you're wrong. If I, a property owner, don't want people with guns on MY property, which I'm paying taxes on, then that is MY choice, just like you can choose not to come onto my property because of it. ...

There are already laws on the books, that provide for liability, for example if you are at a shopping mall and you get robbed in the parking lot of their property, and you are injured during the course of the robbery; they are liable for failing to provide sufficient security. This does not apply to theft, only personal injury...

YOU STILL CAN'T READ...
And obviously have not read anything I said other then a few words...
Just because it is your property does not mean I do not have the absolute right to defend myself, my life by any means necessary...

Even if I am breaking any superfluous request of yours and even if I am carrying an illegal gun or breaking the law in doing so...

The defense of your life TRUMPS ALL...

This has been held numerous times in the last year alone by the Illinois Supreme Court (against the opposition of Barack Obama) and others...

This is a inherent right you are born with, nobody can take it away from you; it is reaffirmed by the Second Amendment as an INALIENABLE RIGHT...

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU STILL NOT COMPREHEND?

Link Removed

NRA-ILA ::

Link Removed

Second Amendment Foundation Online

pizza parlor worker kills would-be robber
Link Removed

Pizza Delivery Man Kidnapped & Murdered
Link Removed

Arrest in pizza delivery driver's death ruled proper
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=206989

Three indicted in pizza shop killing
Link Removed

Man gets life term in pizza driver's murder
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/10/11/loc_OH-Pizza.html

Reward Upped In Pizza Deliveryman's Murder
Link Removed

Pizza delivery is considered a hazardous job by the US government. They are third most likely to be murdered on the job, right after police officer and taxi driver...

BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT!
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU STILL NOT COMPREHEND?


BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT!

I comprehend it perfectly. However, what part of Private property rights do you not comprehend? If I say that guns aren't allowed on my property, then they're not allowed, PERIOD! Furthermore, nothing is forcing you to be there. If you don't like my rules, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! It's as simple as that.
 

Bohemian

New member
I comprehend it perfectly. However, what part of Private property rights do you not comprehend? If I say that guns aren't allowed on my property, then they're not allowed, PERIOD! Furthermore, nothing is forcing you to be there. If you don't like my rules, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! It's as simple as that.

I do not understand why you keep trying to change the topic/focus of this thread...

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS OR THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PIZZA HUT OR ANYBODY ELSE'S FOR THAT MATTER, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO DEPRIVE SOMEBODY OF LIFE OR LIBERTY OR NOT...
WHICH NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO DO, GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ENFORCED BY YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS...

Without the second amendment, all others have no meaning and are unenforceable...

A unknown, unlawful, unenforceable policy that puts someones employees lives, liberty in danger, is egregious, firing someone for defending their life regardless of whether or not they knew about the superfluous, unlawful corporate policy is UNFORGIVABLE; and is why in my view pizza hut should be boycotted nationwide until they, apologize and make amends; to their corporate policy that puts their employees life and liberty and risk...
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I do not understand why you keep trying to change the topic/focus of this thread...

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS OR THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PIZZA HUT OR ANYBODY ELSE'S FOR THAT MATTER, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO DEPRIVE SOMEBODY OF LIFE OR LIBERTY OR NOT...
WHICH NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO DO, GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ENFORCED BY YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS...

Without the second amendment, all others have no meaning and are unenforceable...

A unknown, unlawful, unenforceable policy that puts someones employees lives, liberty in danger, is egregious, firing someone for defending their life regardless of whether or not they knew about the superfluous, unlawful corporate policy is UNFORGIVABLE; and is why in my view pizza hut should be boycotted nationwide until they, apologize and make amends; to their corporate policy that puts their employees life and liberty and risk...

This has everything to do with property rights (in this case, company policy is the same thing). My take on the whole thing is that if you're aware of the policy beforehand, as they deliveryman clearly was, and you choose to violate it anyway, which he did, don't be surprised of the consequences.

Furthermore, do not get constitutional rights and self-preservation rights confused with job security. One's rights do not and are not supposed to guarantee job security. Show me where the Constitution or the law of self preservation requires job security and I'll concede defeat. In this case, the right to self preservation did not run the guy afoul of the law; he was not arrested and was not charged by the government for any wrongdoing. However, you cannot force the company not to keep someone who was in violation of a company policy that he was aware of beforehand. Furthermore, if you don't like a company's policy on carrying weapons while on the job, nothing is forcing you to stay there. You can alway choose to work somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
This has everything to do with property rights (in this case, company policy is the same thing). My take on the whole thing is that if you're aware of the policy beforehand, as they deliveryman clearly was, and you choose to violate it anyway, which he did, don't be surprised of the consequences.

Furthermore, do not get constitutional rights and self-preservation rights confused with job security. One's rights do not and are not supposed to guarantee job security. In this case, the right to self preservation did not run the guy afoul of the law; he was not arrested and was not charged by the government for any wrongdoing. However, you cannot force the company not to fire someone who was in violation of a company policy.

You continue to stray from the topic of this thread...

He was not aware of the company policy beforehand...

Property Rights and Company Policy are two distinct entities...

AS IS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
AND Pizza Hut Fired somebody for violating a corporate policy that they had no knowledge of in advance, and even if they did it was in defense of their right to self-preservation, their own life...

No body can be deprived of their life, liberty, etc., without DUE PROCESS OF LAW...

I hold that defending your life is not a justifiable reason for termination...
Therefore, in my view Pizza Hut should be boycotted because of it...

Moreover, that it is unlawful to institute a corporate policy that can willfully deprive someone of their life, liberty...
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
You continue to stray from the topic of this thread...

He was not aware of the company policy beforehand...

Property Rights and Company Policy are two distinct entities...

AS IS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
AND Pizza Hut Fired somebody for violating a corporate policy that they had no knowledge of in advance, and even if they did it was in defense of their right to self-preservation, their own life...

No body can be deprived of their life, liberty, etc., without DUE PROCESS OF LAW...

I hold that defending your life is not a justifiable reason for termination...
Therefore, in my view Pizza Hut should be boycotted because of it...

Moreover, that it is unlawful to institute a corporate policy that can willfully deprive someone of their life, liberty...

I am not straying from the topic. Private businesses have the right to run their businesses any way they see fit, and that includes not allowing the carrying of firearms while the employees are on company time. Employees are just as free to choose not to work there if they do not like the policy. However, it is foolish to think that just because self-preservation is an inalienable right, that this argument is going to guarantee you job security, because it will not.
 

Bohemian

New member
I am not straying from the topic. Private businesses have the right to run their businesses any way they see fit, and that includes not allowing the carrying of firearms while the employees are on company time. Employees are just as free to choose not to work there if they do not like the policy. However, it is foolish to think that just because self-preservation is an inalienable right, that this argument is going to guarantee you job security, because it will not.

I agree to this in part; but this guy had no knowledge of the corporate policy in advance, and even if he did it is absolutely egregious; that they would enforce the policy under the circumstances of defending ones life...

Therefore, I hold that Pizza Hut should be boycotted nationally for their willful intent to deprive their employees from life, liberty, etc...

The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

AND Pizza Hut is being sued over this, in a wrongful termination suit and violation of the second amendment and other constitutional rights...
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I agree to this in part; but this guy had no knowledge of the corporate policy in advance, and even if he did it is absolutely egregious; that they would enforce the policy under the circumstances of defending ones life...

Therefore, I hold that Pizza Hut should be boycotted nationally for their willful intent to deprive their employees from life, liberty, etc...

The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

AND Pizza Hut is being sued over this, in a wrongful termination suit and violation of the second amendment and other constitutional rights...

The following quote cannot be found in the Constitution, but is equally as sacred.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.
 

Bohemian

New member
The following quote cannot be found in the Constitution, but is equally as sacred.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

Business owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit shall not be infringed. Furthermore, nobody's right to keep and bear arms shall entitle them to job security. Period.

ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUARANTEE OF EMPLOYMENT...

This is about the guarantee of inalienable rights...

I agree that businesses in corporate America such as pizza hut are allowed to make their own company policies as they see fit…

EXCEPT:
When it comes to depriving an individual of their fundamental, inherent, inalienable rights they are born with and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States of America, such as the right to life, liberty and the right to keep and bear arms…
To name a few…
When they do so they are violating said rights and are subject to punishment under the law…

The problem is too many Obama lovers; fail to comprehend this fact…
And other whiners are either afraid to do or say something about it or they fail to do or say anything about in an actionable way that will bring about the right kind of change…

Now that the Parker-Heller decision has been made and the SCOTUS has clearly spelled out that the Second Amendment can come under no stricter scrutiny then that it is a basic right; the militia provision is irrelevant and that you can not read anything else into “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”… it is only a matter of time before the Obama loving, Brady Campaign loving, corporate America, states, cities and other municipalities are handed down the directive to cease and desist the deprivation of inalienable rights; without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Until then I support the boycotting of Pizza Hut and other Obama and Brady Campaign lovers, until they stop infringing upon inalienable rights...

The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

NRA-ILA ::
Link Removed
Second Amendment Foundation Online
 

sailor

New member
As previously posted, (my understanding) this person fired was a contractor (delivery via his personal vehicle - not a company vehicle), and he had every right to have a defensive weapon on himself or in his car - private vehicle, after all! He did not present/use his weapon at Pizza Hut, but out on his delivery circuit. There is no way that he should be fired for defending his life AWAY FROM PIZZA HUT! On their property, in their premises, I can see that they could press for dismissal, even though that too would be problematic, in my view. His life trumps any rule, not law, of employment - always! Too many statements posted in conflict with what the story is or may be, I wasn't there, and I do not trust "reporting" - too often slanted or distorted or omissions of fact.
sailor
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUARANTEE OF EMPLOYMENT...

This is about the guarantee of inalienable rights...

I agree that businesses in corporate America such as pizza hut are allowed to make their own company policies as they see fit…

EXCEPT:
When it comes to depriving an individual of their fundamental, inherent, inalienable rights they are born with and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States of America, such as the right to life, liberty and the right to keep and bear arms…
To name a few…
When they do so they are violating said rights and are subject to punishment under the law…

The problem is too many Obama lovers; fail to comprehend this fact…
And other whiners are either afraid to do or say something about it or they fail to do or say anything about in an actionable way that will bring about the right kind of change…

Now that the Parker-Heller decision has been made and the SCOTUS has clearly spelled out that the Second Amendment can come under no stricter scrutiny then that it is a basic right; the militia provision is irrelevant and that you can not read anything else into “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”… it is only a matter of time before the Obama loving, Brady Campaign loving, corporate America, states, cities and other municipalities are handed down the directive to cease and desist the deprivation of inalienable rights; without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Until then I support the boycotting of Pizza Hut and other Obama and Brady Campaign lovers, until they stop infringing upon inalienable rights...

The right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

NRA-ILA ::
Link Removed
Second Amendment Foundation Online

That's where you are wrong. Once again, yes companies have the right to run their business as they see fit, and anyone who feels they are being denied their inalienable rights by working there is free to seek employment elsewhere. Just like everyone has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, so too do property owners to deny anyone from exercising that right on their property on company time. Again, anyone who doesn't like the policy is not being forced to stay their against their will. Sheesh, let the free market prevail; the company is free to deny entrance or employment to anyone who violates their policy and prospective employees are free to accept that or go somewhere else.
 

Bohemian

New member
That's where you are wrong. Once again, yes companies have the right to run their business as they see fit, and anyone who feels they are being denied their inalienable rights by working there is free to seek employment elsewhere. Just like everyone has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, so too do property owners to deny anyone from exercising that right on their property on company time. Again, anyone who doesn't like the policy is not being forced to stay their against their will. Sheesh, let the free market prevail; the company is free to deny entrance or employment to anyone who violates their policy and prospective employees are free to accept that or go somewhere else.

I AM NOT WRONG; YOU ARE... Read the fricking post(s) and then if you disagree show me chapter and verse where the Bill of Rights and or Constitution gives anybody the right to infringe upon any individuals inalienable rights...

Just because they have been getting away with it until now does not make it right or legal...
And the NRA, GOA, And SAF are on their way to putting the kibosh on that...

It does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...

It does not say no one may be deprived of their life, liberty, inalienable rights etc.... without due process of law... Except...
 

MP3Mogul

New member
Wish this guy lived here:

I would hire him RIGHT NOW, without any question, and he can carry while at work. I'm so lucky that I am allowed to carry at work! I bet I can offer the gentleman a raise as well!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,654
Members
74,274
Latest member
Jlynn610
Top