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.

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!?!?🤣

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.


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.

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.

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
wpr (8h) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

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