Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
The reason I keep a loaded gun for one reason. It’s in case I need it. I’m not a blood thirsty villain. I just want to be able to protect myself and family if necessary. It’s the same reason police have guns. You may never need to use it. But need it once and not have it....you can figure out what would happen.
I’ve been a gun owner for the last 46 years. Never committed a crime with a gun (or otherwise, for that matter) and have no plans to start now.
Law abiding citizens should not have their rights taken away.
That’s my point.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
On Yahoo! again.....man attacks and stabs 5 people with a knife.
When are we going to put those “kitchen cutlery control” laws into the books!?!?🤣
UserPostedImage
porky88
5 years ago
Businesses have every right to ban guns from their organizations. It is not the place of the state to mandate that individuals be allowed to bring guns into a Walgreens or a McDonalds because the state allows them to do so on public property. That is up to that company. It is their property.

For example, I do not permit guns at my work because it is corporate policy. My company stipulates that weapons are banned on site. It is a big issue during hunting season. However, I do not write anyone up for having a gun in the public land across from work because that falls under the state and they allow it. Not my place then. See how that works?

Believing that this would make anyone less safe is interesting. I would argue that Airports are a prime target then for this reason (they allow no guns), but mass shootings rarely occur there. Why? Because of the police presence. Is it the guns they have? I don’t think so. People fear authority. Having that presence to deter unwanted acts is what works. If two people have a gun and one person has no respect for the other, then I don’t think that deters anyone from using their gun.


Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago

Businesses have every right to ban guns from their organizations. It is not the place of the state to mandate that individuals be allowed to bring guns into a Walgreens or a McDonalds because the state allows them to do so on public property. That is up to that company. It is their property.

For example, I do not permit guns at my work because it is corporate policy. My company stipulates that weapons are banned on site. It is a big issue during hunting season. However, I do not write anyone up for having a gun in the public land across from work because that falls under the state and they allow it. Not my place then. See how that works?

Believing that this would make anyone less safe is interesting. I would argue that Airports are a prime target then for this reason (they allow no guns), but mass shootings rarely occur there. Why? Because of the police presence. Is it the guns they have? I don’t think so. People fear authority. Having that presence to deter unwanted acts is what works. If two people have a gun and one person has no respect for the other, then I don’t think that deters anyone from using their gun.

Originally Posted by: porky88 


Porky, I have no problem with a store or business saying they don’t want guns in their stores/companies.
The point I have made is, no sign is going to keep an evil person from bringing in and using a gun. It ONLY would keep respectful people from taking a gun inside.
And as far as airports, they have metal detectors and body scanners to keep weapons out of an airplane, and to keep mass shootings from happening there. So far I haven’t seen that at Walgreens. Until they do, it’s only a “feel good” sense of false security.
Do you not agree?
And you are right in the fact that if someone has no respect for others, they will use their gun. That’s the problem. Bad people that have no respect for others.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Porky makes a great point.

Any business can choose to ban guns on site. That is their own decision, and they face consequences one way or the other. On one hand, lawful concealed carry employees would have to choose whether or not they wanted to continue their employment there. At the same time, that business has to weigh the safety benefit of having armed employees against the downside of one of them going wacko.

On the other hand, businesses have to understand that when implemented, they become soft targets when they implement such policies.

Regardless, the decision is to be made by the business, not the government. If customers don’t like the decision, then don’t shop there.

The second amendment precludes the federal government from making restrictions against citizens from carrying guns. That does not mean the states cannot implement additional restrictions. That further does not mean that businesses cannot implement for the restrictions.

I know some of you will think that I’m a wind sock on this issues, but I believe my position is consistent, the federal government cannot unduly restrict our ability to bear arms. It is our right.

States can further implement policies, subject to the courts, which may restrict ownership.

Our founding fathers, who were brilliant, setting up a system where by if a certain state wanted to put in rules, citizens had the right to move to another state or such rules with that necessarily exist. We all have a choice.

Most of the problems in our country, IMO, stem from our federal government trying to do too much, implementing a ‘nanny’ state, instead of allowing the states to make determinations how things are done.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
“Nanny state”.
So true. The government treats us like we are all children that can’t be trusted to make adult decisions.
I have no problem with those that don’t want to own guns. They have that right. Most people I know are mature enough to make that decision for themselves.
UserPostedImage
porky88
5 years ago

Porky, I have no problem with a store or business saying they don’t want guns in their stores/companies.
The point I have made is, no sign is going to keep an evil person from bringing in and using a gun. It ONLY would keep respectful people from taking a gun inside.
And as far as airports, they have metal detectors and body scanners to keep weapons out of an airplane, and to keep mass shootings from happening there. So far I haven’t seen that at Walgreens. Until they do, it’s only a “feel good” sense of false security.
Do you not agree?
And you are right in the fact that if someone has no respect for others, they will use their gun. That’s the problem. Bad people that have no respect for others.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 


I would agree that placing a sign and announcing it is probably not necessary. I would think the same if a sign was placed saying, "we allow guns" as well. It just draws attention to yourself and that is the last thing you want to do.

However, and I may have glossed over this point in this thread already, but some states require signs stating no guns allowed. In other words, it's the law that a business needs these signs if they in fact don't want guns on their property. In fact, Wisconsin is one of these states. You need to place a sign at your organization's entry points that clearly prohibits guns from the premises. Without the sign, you technically can't ask people to leave. In other words, you are informing the public that this is a gun free zone.

Therefore, I would probably add that your displeasure for the signage doesn't fall on the business making a choice of not allowing guns on his or her property. I would say your point should be taken up with the states that again mandate that signage be placed at the entry points informing the public that guns are prohibited. Just food for thought...

FYI, many airport front entrances do not have metal detectors. You can walk in and up to the ticket counters without setting off an alarm. Otherwise, you would set off alarms most times for having random metal in your pocket (like keys). They do, however, have signs that say "no guns allowed on the property" which is again mandated by several states (not all of them). Again, to your point, if somebody wants to inflict harm, he or she is probably not going to be afraid of those signs. They are just going to walk in and inflict harm.

Given that Airports have a ton of traffic going in and out all day (and it is common knowledge that no guns are allowed), you would think they would be high volume targets for active shooters. They are in fact threatened often, yet these threats are often not carried out. Why is that? I comeback to the presence of trained officers who can and will respond to an incident far quicker than John Doe and his concealed carry.
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Rules at airports are different across the nation. Every airport in the nation must allow you to be able to get a locked, secured, unloaded gun into the airport so that you can check it in your checked bag.

Many airports allow concealed carry in non-secure areas. It depends on the state. I live in Florida and it is illegal to have a loaded gun in a common area or any area of the airport. I happen to think that that is a good rule, and wish other states were to do that.

I also am a licensed concealed carry citizen. In states which have reciprocity with Florida I follow the rules check my gun and I am packing while on the road. If I am going to be primarily spending time in a state with reciprocity, but traveling from an airport back to Florida in a state which does not have reciprocity, I pack my gun securely in my checked bag before going to the airport.

To the point, airports are safer because there are numerous uniformed and armed police.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
Porky, I don’t have displeasure over stores putting signs out.
All I’m saying is that they won’t prevent even one crime.
It’s a false sense of security.
I do get your point about them having to put out a sign by law.
Armed cops do keep bad guys out of committing a violent crime at an airport. But average stores don’t have those armed people. Thus the bad guys hit the places where there is less chance of coming up against armed people.
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Cheesey said:

I do get your point about them having to put out a sign by law.

I believe in response to Porky88 who observed:

... but some states require signs stating no guns allowed. In other words, it's the law that a business needs these signs if they in fact don't want guns on their property. In fact, Wisconsin is one of these states. You need to place a sign at your organization's entry points that clearly prohibits guns from the premises. Without the sign, you technically can't ask people to leave. In other words, you are informing the public that this is a gun free zone.


Cheesey, I think Porky88's point is that this is a law, not an opinion, i.e. the law (in certain states) says they MUST put signs up ONLY if they want to disallow concealed or open carry. They don't have to put of signs, but if they don't, local laws apply.

I think the law is probably a good one, although I think a store owners who would not want licensed concealed carry citizens in their stores is foolish and short-sighted.

By the way, irrespective of you opinion on Wal-Mart's decision in regard to retailing ammo and guns, HOWEVER, there is alot of FAKE NEWS ON BOTH SIDES regarding their decision. (BTW, I am ambivalent on their decision but like Wal-Mart because it is the only store that still retails Old Spice...but I digress.) Wal-Mart's actual policy, which is available on their website, is that they do not want OPEN carry in their stores. If you licensed concealed carry, and the local/state jurisdiction in which the store is located allows concealed carry, you are fine and they are fine. I think the policy is reasonable.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (6h) : We do have good depth at running back imo. Still so frustrating. Bitching about it is a futile excercise, which I plan to do anyway.
    Mucky Tundra (20h) : Whoops, I thought Zero was saying it was a surprise the Brewers lost and not Lloyd being hurt
    Mucky Tundra (20h) : Not a surprise; inevitable
    Zero2Cool (22h) : Brewers streak ends at 14
    Zero2Cool (23h) : SURPRISE
    Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on MarShawn Lloyd: “He’s gonna miss some time.”
    Mucky Tundra (16-Aug) : CLIFFORD WITH THE TD WITH UNDER 2 TO GO!!!!!
    Zero2Cool (16-Aug) : 90 MINUTES UNTIL FAKE KICKOFF!!
    Martha Careful (16-Aug) : I think Ruven is a bot, but regardless should be stricken from the site.
    Zero2Cool (14-Aug) : Packers RB Josh Jacobs ranked No. 33 in NFL 'Top 100'
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : The LVN Musgrave collision- Andy Herman said Musgrave seemed to be the one most impacted injury-wise
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : a lower back injury
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : Doubs says he's "fine" after injury scare. Some reported it as z
    Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : With LVN that is; need to see what happens in the next practice
    Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : beast, reading about what happened, it sounded like one of those "two guys collide and are moving slow afterwards" type of deals
    beast (12-Aug) : I believe Musgrave has been injured every single season since at least a Sophomore in highschool
    packerfanoutwest (12-Aug) : Matt LaFleur: “Highly unlikely” Jordan Love plays more this preseason
    dfosterf (12-Aug) : Doubs, Savion Williams, LVN, Musgrave all banged up to one degree or another, missing one here I forget
    Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : RB Tyrion Davis-Price is signing with the Green Bay Packers.
    Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : zero help, dominated. preseason
    beast (12-Aug) : QB Jordan Love has surgery
    beast (12-Aug) : Martha said Morgan had a lot of help, I didn't watch the OL so I can't say.
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers LT Jordan Morgan did not allow a single pressure across 23 pass-blocking snaps vs. Jets last night, per PFF
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : With buckeye and the reasonable couple, we're currently sitting at 10
    buckeyepackfan (10-Aug) : Just posted to re-up on our FFL.
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
    wpr (10-Aug) : I made it through the 1st Q.
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Just gotta figure out how.
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
    beast (10-Aug) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : Sooooooo many penalties
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Well that half was fun
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Great, zayne is down
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
    Mucky Tundra (9-Aug) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Woo-hoo
    TheKanataThrilla (9-Aug) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
    beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
    Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
    dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    15m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    9h / Around The NFL / isaiah

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / GoPack1984

    17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / beast

    15-Aug / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.