Common Sense, reasonable regulation, etc...

[Purple]

I prefer to determine on my premises who will do the "blowing away" and under what circumstances that will happen.

I can't check the references, the experience, the competence, or impose my armed robbery policies on every customers who thinks I need their help keeping an armed robber from getting away with money that can be replaced.

I can't be filter out customers with defective weapons that fire unexpectedly, or customers who can't seem to secure their firearm on their body to prevent unintentional discharges.

What I can do is prohibit customers from having a weapon on them while on my premises and hire competent security personal who are obligated to following my customer safety plan to deal with anyone who ignores my rules, instead of expecting each individual customer to make separate and distinct determinations of those matters.

As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service to anyone within the laws of your state. I as a customer can take my business dealing elsewhere, because I have the right to refuse to enter your premise or conduct any business with you and I'm not obligated by state laws.

Some states have laws do not allow you to pick and choose what laws are applicable to your establishment (check your LCCW laws) and in arbitrarily exercising what you feel is your right, you can actually find yourself in a court battle to defend your decisions.

I find your 'logic' flawed and your argument without merit.

 

[Midnight]

BANK CRIME STATISTICS (BCS)
FEDERAL INSURED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
JANUARY 1, 2009 – DECEMBER 31, 2009I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BANK ROBBERY AND INCIDENTAL CRIMES STATUTE, TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2113

Robberies

Commercial Banks 5,316
Mutual Savings Banks 51
Savings and Loan Associations 106
Credit Unions 470
Total 5,943



Deaths

Customer 0
Employee 0
Employee Family 0
Perpetrator 21
Law Officer 0
Guard 0
Other 0
Total 21
Number of incidents in which deaths occurred: 20

Looks like our bank robbery policies are working.

If you want to be a security guard then stop by and pick up an application.

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

HAHAHAHAHAHA, what kind of nonsense is this? I know what it is:

I was thinking more of this:

 

[NavyLCDR]

Link Removed

Ok... had to look it up.... :biggrin:

+1!

 

[NavyLCDR]

I prefer to determine on my premises who will do the "blowing away" and under what circumstances that will happen.

What I can do is prohibit customers from having a weapon on them while on my premises and hire competent security personal who are obligated to following my customer safety plan to deal with anyone who ignores my rules, instead of expecting each individual customer to make separate and distinct determinations of those matters.

Boys....what we have here is a fine example of:

 

[Lakeland Man]

Why is it that people with extreme positions have a tendency to be intolerant of the opinions of others.

Liberals complain and berate conservatives for their views. Conservatives do the same to liberals. They each complain that the other side shouldn't be heard.

On here, the same holds true. One side ends up insulting the other and the insults fly back and forth. I started this thread for an intelligent discussion of this issue.

 

[Treo]

Those two statements conflict with each other. Your oath, like mine, was to support and defend the constitution. If the constitution is changed by a 3/4th majority of the states, your oath is still valid. You swore to support and defend, not to support and defend the constitution the way YOU think it should be.

So, if the 4th amendment were repealed tomorrow you would hold your oath binding?


I think it's worth noting that the Founders pursued every possible avenue of redress and only sought resolution through force of arms when the British actually moved to confiscate their arms.

I think that would be the Rubicon for me as well

 

[Midnight]

I started this thread for an intelligent discussion of this issue.

There's nothing to debate. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you people understand?

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

Just in case you're a little slow and didn't catch that, I'll say it again.


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

 

[Lakeland Man]

First: Treo...If I were still on active duty, then I would be duty bound to support the constitution, whether I agreed with it or not. That was the oath I took.

Second: Midnight...Maybe if you used smaller words.

There is no reason to be insulting or condecending to me because I disagree with you. All I ever said was that I feel that training before purchasing or carrying a firearm would be a smart idea. I don't make the laws, and I'm not trying to take away any of your rights (or anyone elses for that matter.) If you don't agree, thats your right. But, by the same token, YOU don't make the laws either. And unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, YOU aren't the final word on interpreting the laws either, even if you think you are.

I'm not going to get down in the mud with you. I have more class than that.

 

[Midnight]

First: Treo...If I were still on active duty, then I would be duty bound to support the constitution, whether I agreed with it or not. That was the oath I took.

Second: Midnight...Maybe if you used smaller words.

There is no reason to be insulting or condecending to me because I disagree with you. All I ever said was that I feel that training before purchasing or carrying a firearm would be a smart idea. I don't make the laws, and I'm not trying to take away any of your rights (or anyone elses for that matter.) If you don't agree, thats your right. But, by the same token, YOU don't make the laws either. And unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, YOU aren't the final word on interpreting the laws either, even if you think you are.

I'm not going to get down in the mud with you. I have more class than that.

I said it once, and I'll say it again: give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. The government knows no bounds in what it will do to stop law-abiding citizens from their rights.

 

[Treo]

First: Treo...If I were still on active duty, then I would be duty bound to support the constitution, whether I agreed with it or not. That was the oath I took.

I was just following orders, I've heard that before

 

[Lakeland Man]

Treo, if you haven't served, then you don't understand. If you HAVE, the we shouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why is it that people with extreme positions have a tendency to be intolerant of the opinions of others.

Liberals complain and berate conservatives for their views. Conservatives do the same to liberals. They each complain that the other side shouldn't be heard.

On here, the same holds true. One side ends up insulting the other and the insults fly back and forth. I started this thread for an intelligent discussion of this issue.

Well, here's what's funny. If I went to the Brady Campaign's forum and posted on there that I thought the 2nd Amendment meant just exactly what is written, and that every person has a right not only to possess a firearm in their house, but to carry (bear) that firearm in public as well, the Brady Bunch would call me a lunatic, a danger to others, and hell bent on overthrowing the government.

But here, on a pro-gun, pro-self-defense forum, I make the same statement.... AND I GET THE SAME RESULT! This is a forum to support the right to carry a firearm. We get nogods who wants to be his own criminal assassination security force and insists on disarming everyone who comes through his door. We get B2Tall who claims that we all want to give kindergartners guns to take to school to play with, while the parents drive our tanks through the social security office and nuke the White House....

Give me a break!

BTW, nobody is arguing with you that training in firearms handling before purchasing a gun or carrying a gun is a bad thing. The government and politicians making what they feel is "reasonable regulation" mandatory is a bad thing.

 

[Lakeland Man]

Well, here's what's funny. If I went to the Brady Campaign's forum and posted on there that I thought the 2nd Amendment meant just exactly what is written, and that every person has a right not only to possess a firearm in their house, but to carry (bear) that firearm in public as well, the Brady Bunch would call me a lunatic, a danger to others, and hell bent on overthrowing the government.

But here, on a pro-gun, pro-self-defense forum, I make the same statement.... AND I GET THE SAME RESULT! This is a forum to support the right to carry a firearm. We get nogods who wants to be his own criminal assassination security force and insists on disarming everyone who comes through his door. We get B2Tall who claims that we all want to give kindergartners guns to take to school to play with, while the parents drive our tanks through the social security office and nuke the White House....

Give me a break!

BTW, nobody is arguing with you that training in firearms handling before purchasing a gun or carrying a gun is a bad thing. The government and politicians making what they feel is "reasonable regulation" mandatory is a bad thing.

I would expect that from the Brady bunch. They use that poor guy as a prop for their anti-gun rhetoric. As for the same here, its exactly as I stated...people tend to look down on those who believe differently than they do.

I agree with your last paragraph though. I don't want my right restricted, but I don't feel that being trained is bad. You are literally carrying the power of life and death in your hand or on your hip.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Treo, if you haven't served, then you don't understand. If you HAVE, the we shouldn't be having this discussion.

I've served for 27 years, both enlisted and officer. I'm with Treo.

 

[Lakeland Man]

I've served for 27 years, both enlisted and officer. I'm with Treo.

Treo's statement implied that by being true to our oath, we were somehow wrong. I took my oath in good faith, and my word means something, at least to me. You'll have to forgive me if someone calls my own personal morality into question over a hypothetical situation and it bothers me. Maybe I'm just sensitive.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Treo's statement implied that by being true to our oath, we were somehow wrong. I took my oath in good faith, and my word means something, at least to me. You'll have to forgive me if someone calls my own personal morality into question over a hypothetical situation and it bothers me. Maybe I'm just sensitive.

I think what Treo was trying to say was this: this country was founded upon the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including it's amendments. IF, somehow, and I doubt it will ever happened, the Bill of Rights was repealed, or even just the 2nd and 4th amendments... the only purpose that could be served by such an act would be to establish a police state. This country was not founded upon the principles of being a police state. This country was founded upon being a nation of free citizens, with the government serving the people - not the government ruling over the people. That is the whole basis for the Constitution, is to keep the government subservient to the people.

Have we drifted away from that? Absolutely. Has the government grown in power to rule over the people vice serve the people? Absolutely. Has it risen to the level of tyranny, that would result in the citizens' exercising their duty to overthrow the government by force, if necessary? I don't think it has. The recent US Supreme Court decisions on Heller and McDonald show us there is hope. Now, if we could stop the abuse of the interstate commerce clause that has allowed the Federal government to regulate anything they damn well please, we might be in pretty good shape.

What Treo was saying is that a person who takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution must weigh that against supporting a nation of free citizens. If the Constitution is changed so that it does away with the nation of free citizens, then one must decide which is the higher calling - to keep the oath to support the Constitution regardless of how it is changed... or to support a nation of free citizens. The Declaration of Independence says it is the duty of the citizen to support a nation of free citizens - to the level of violent overthrow of the government if necessary.

An example would be: would I go door to door and confiscate citizens' guns because the 2nd Amendment was repealed and the Federal government implemented a nationwide firearms ban, just because "I was following orders." The answer, for me personally, is no.

 

[Lakeland Man]

Well, that may be what he was saying. Personally, I'm insulted by the way he said it.

 

[Ed Hamberger]

NavyLT - Treo - Midnight; Are you all part of a treo (sic!) that troll the various forums for a juicey thread to attack? Me thinks yes! If you three want unconditional Constitutional Carry that allows the likes of mentally deranged individuals like Jared Laughner and Major Hasan, or the three kids in the Columbine High incident, then neither one of you three should be carrying either! I for one don't want Constitutional Carry with some kind of safe guards in place. In my 25 years of Military service and two wars, I've seen my share permissive carry results, and the results weren't pretty. You three need to tone down your retoric considerably...:yu::yu::yu::no:

 

[edlacy]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming And others I am sure Require no training what so ever before issuing a permit.

No blood in the streets that I am aware of

I can't vouch for the others, but, California requires a minimum 8 hour class which includes firing range qualification.