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
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (35m) : Favored Illinois Bishop?
beast (14h) : Technically, the I in FIB stands for Italian now, Si?
dfosterf (16h) : I never thought I'd live long enough to call a pope a FIB, but here we are
Martha Careful (17h) : Chicago produces a pope before it produces a 4000 yard passing quarterback
wpr (18h) : HAHAHA Mucky Comment of the day.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : According to reports, Mel Kiper is furious that Sanders wasn't selected as the new Pope
Zero2Cool (20h) : Time taken to get picked:
Zero2Cool (20h) : New Pope: 2 days | Shedeur Sanders: 3 days
Zero2Cool (21h) : Collin Whitchurch @cowhitchurch · 1h Chicago got a pope before it got a QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season.
Mucky Tundra (21h) : New Pope from Chicago; in other words, the city produced a Pope before a 4000 yard passer
beast (7-May) : My first name starts with R and my beer belly is quite voluptuous! Thank you for noticing 😏
Zero2Cool (7-May) : beast, you're just one R from being voluptuous.
Zero2Cool (7-May) : And now some Packers blogger is like Doubs to Steelers makes sense!!!!
Zero2Cool (7-May) : You saw me Tweet???
beast (7-May) : Supposedly Steelers will be trading WR George Pickens to the Cowboys for a 3rd and late round pick swap
Zero2Cool (5-May) : Ravens release Justin Tucker, err D. Watson Jr?
Zero2Cool (5-May) : Cardinals have signed TE Josiah Deguara.
Zero2Cool (5-May) : If I were to "Google" it, then I wouldn't read it in your words.
Martha Careful (5-May) : Yes, in the military S2’s work on IPB, PERCEC, PHYSEC and IO
dfosterf (4-May) : FYI civilian companies swipe the S2 designation from the military. S2 is the intelligence branch up to brigade level. G2 is division level.
dfosterf (4-May) : Google it. Make sure to tack NFL on it or you will get the military meaning
Zero2Cool (4-May) : S2?
beast (4-May) : Seems like the S2 has a love/hate relationship with professional scouts.
beast (4-May) : In theory, the S2 test how quickly a QBs brain can solve game like issues and how quickly they can do it.
dfosterf (4-May) : Are you gentlemen and at least one lady familiar with the S2 cognition
Zero2Cool (4-May) : Maybe there isn't an issue.
beast (4-May) : NFL really needs to fix their position labeling issue, but I don't think they care
Zero2Cool (1-May) : Packers did not activate the fifth-year options for linebacker Quay Walker, with the goal of signing him to a contract extension.
Zero2Cool (1-May) : Matthew Golden spoke with Randall Cobb before draft. Looked like chance encounter.
packerfanoutwest (1-May) : from a head left turn?
packerfanoutwest (1-May) : someone drunk?
Zero2Cool (1-May) : Unlikely.
dfosterf (30-Apr) : How long until Jeff Sperbeck's family sues John Elway ?
Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : Packers are exercising the fifth-year option on DT Devonte Wyatt, locking in a guaranteed $12.9M for the 2026 season.
beast (30-Apr) : Sounds like P Luke Elzinga has a rookie try out opportunity from the Titans
dfosterf (30-Apr) : Luke Elzinga Punter Oklahoma stil unsigned. Green Bay has been mentioned as good fit
beast (30-Apr) : The Packers re-signed three exclusive rights free agents WR Melton, P Whelan and RB Wilson.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : February 5, 2002 (age 23) ok no. packers.com is wrong
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Micah Robinson is only 19??
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : 6 first rounders on Packers defense now
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : LB Isaiah Simmons. Signed. Called it!!! Oh yeah!
Martha Careful (29-Apr) : ty bboystyle...fat fingers
bboystyle (29-Apr) : Tom*
Martha Careful (28-Apr) : RIP Packer Safety Tim Brown
beast (27-Apr) : Yeah, but also some of the wording suggestions Jax only pranked called the QB, not the others... and if he had an open spreadsheet & 3 calls
beast (27-Apr) : Thank goodness he's not leaving the Turtle in the Red Tide
Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : Cowboys 1st round pick Tyler Booker will indeed be bringing his pet turtle to Dallas with him
Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : that contained all prospects info and contact
Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : beast, according the Falcons statement Jax came across it on an ipad. If I had to guess, probably an open spread sheet or something
Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : Simmons put up an emoji with cheese.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
40m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3-May / Packers Draft Threads / Martha Careful

3-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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