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
Mucky Tundra (4h) : Bears. Santos. Blocked FG
Zero2Cool (15h) : Bears. Vikings. OT
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Thems the breaks I guess
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Two players out and Williams had an injury designation this week but Oladapo is a healthy scratch
Zero2Cool (16h) : Packers inactives vs 49ers: • CB Jaire Alexander • S Kitan Oladapo • LB Edgerrin Cooper • OL Jacob Monk
TheKanataThrilla (18h) : Aaron Jones with a costly red zone fumble
Zero2Cool (19h) : When we trade Malik for a 1st rounder, we'll need a new QB2.
packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : Report: Aaron Rodgers wants to play in 2025, but not for the Jets
beast (23-Nov) : That's what I told the Police officer about my speed when he pulled me over
packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : NFL told Bears that Packers’ blocked field goal was legal
packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : 49ers are underdogs at Packers, ending streak of 36 straight games as favorites
Zero2Cool (22-Nov) : 49ers might be down their QB, DL, TE and LT?
packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : Jaire Alexander says he has a torn PCL
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : Even with the context it's ... what?
Mucky Tundra (20-Nov) : Matt LaFleur without context: “I don’t wanna pat you on the butt and you poop in my hand.”
beast (20-Nov) : We brought in a former Packers OL coach to help evaluate OL as a scout
beast (20-Nov) : Jets have been pretty good at picking DL
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He landed good players thanks to high draft slot. He isn't good.
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He can shove his knowledge up his ass. He knows nothing.
beast (20-Nov) : More knowledge, just like bring in the Jets head coach
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : What? Why? Huh?
beast (19-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers might to try to bring Douglas in through Milt Hendrickson/Ravens connections
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : The Jets fired Joe Douglas, per sources
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Jets are a mess......
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Pretty sure Jets fired their scouting staff and just pluck former Packers.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Jets sign Anders Carlson to their 53.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : When you cycle the weeks, the total over remains for season. But you get your W/L for that selected week. Confusing.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the totals are accurate..nrvrtmind
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : I don't follow what you are saying. The totals are not the same as last week.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : ok so then wht are the totals the same as last week?
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : NFL Pick'em is auto updated when NFL Scores tab is clicked
Martha Careful (19-Nov) : The offense was OK. Let's not forget the Bear defense is very very good.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Who updates the leaderboard on NFLPickem?
beast (19-Nov) : Has the Packers offense been worse since the former Jets coach joined the Packers?
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Offense gets his ass in gear, this could be good.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Backup QB helped with three wins. Special Teams contributed to three wins.
bboystyle (18-Nov) : Lions played outside thats why. They scored 16 and 17 in the only 2 outside games this year
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : The rest of the NFL is catching up to Packers ... kicking is an issue throughout league
packerfanoutwest (18-Nov) : Packers DL Kenny Clark: We knew 'we were going to block' Bears' game-winning field goal attempt
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Lions seem to be throttling everyone, but only (only) got 24 lol maybe the rain is why
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Packers vs Lions game doesn't seem so bad.
beast (18-Nov) : Dennis Green "They are what we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!"
Martha Careful (17-Nov) : comment of the day Z2Cool "Bears better than we want to admit. Packers worse than we think. It's facts."
Mucky Tundra (17-Nov) : my worst case scenario: Bears fix their oline and get a coach like Johnson from the Lions and his scheme
Zero2Cool (17-Nov) : Bears get OL fixed amd we might have a problem
buckeyepackfan (17-Nov) : Pretty sure they already have scouting reports on guys who aren't even starting for their college team. The future is now for me.
buckeyepackfan (17-Nov) : I tend to let Gute and Co. Worry about the future.
beast (17-Nov) : That's great news and Packers need to keep upgrading their OL, DL and DBs this off-season, so missing one guy doesn't kill them
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 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

19-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.