Originally Posted By utahjosh If I were to purchase a gun, I'd be sure to get a gun safe, take safety courses. My dad had shotguns and rifles around, and luckily none of us played with them. We knew how dangerous they were.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Why resort to name calling? Plus, your'e using the word wrong: smug: having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements. <josh- your pistol packin' buddies- have any of them ever had to put their "training" to use in a real life situation? Do they go back for refresher courses?> No, thank goodness. And yes, they have gone back for refresher courses. Last time he brought his sister who used to be super frightened of guns." Name calling? Hardly. If I was going to be caling you a name, I'd say you were an idiot for being so smug about guns in the workplace. But I haven't said that yet, I'm just using that phrase as an example. Allow me to correct YOU: adjective, smug·ger, smug·gest. 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smug">http://dictionary.reference.co...wse/smug</a> josh, what you're trying to put across and no one is buying is analogous to someone saying they fly planes all the time on their video games and if the pilot on their cross country flight takes ill they'd have no problem landing that 777 in a rainstorm. If you can offer that some of these co-workers are ex-military, former law enforcement, etc., then you're slightly better off here. But if they're lifelong programmers with a fundamental flaw in their belief in the Second Amendment it doesn't work.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Sorry, you do not know my coworkers better than I do. I appreciate your concern for my safety, but I'm good.
Originally Posted By utahjosh And again, they are not going around looking for trouble. They are not excited to be a hero. Perhaps they are putting too much faith in a firearm. But they are doing it responsibly. They are people with a different opinion than you.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I don't know why anyone cares about opinions in matters such as these. Shouldn't statistical facts count for more than, "I think this.." or "My neighbor does that..."?
Originally Posted By velo As someone who works in HR, I do wonder what the employer/owner thinks of having armed personnel at the office. Perhaps the owner is also armed? And I also wonder what your liability insurance carrier would think about employees being armed during their shifts. I don't know how that would affect liability coverage (if at all - sure seems like it would); I'm betting no one has informed the ins. carrier of this fact...
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's a very small company. The owner is one of the people who's packing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The question about insurance is a good question. I'd have to think the insurance carrier would not like it at all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They are people with a different opinion than you.<< They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. By carrying a firearm on their person, they have made you and themselves less safe, not more safe. No doubt proper training can mitigate the risk, but it cannot eliminate it. If hey want to be safe, they should stop toting guns around. It's really that simple.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. By carrying a firearm on their person, they have made you and themselves less safe, not more safe. Again, that's true. It's just insignificant.
Originally Posted By utahjosh SPP, What's you opinion on gun control? Do you feel people should be allowed to own guns? What type of regulation do you want?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's the Second Amendment as originally hand written into the Bill of Rights: "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." Here it is as ratified by the states: 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. Note the slight difference in punctuation. I think the Second Amendment has been grossly misinterpreted by the courts. I think people who normally abhor the idea of the Constitution being regarded as a living, breathing document have re-animated the 2nd into this horrifically permissible provision that allows private citizens access to ownership of the type of weapon not even remotely contemplated by the Founding Fathers. Ideally, if you want to own a musket or a pistol of the type used by the militias of the 18th century then have at it, but as for the rest, it's an incredible abuse. Nonetheless, I think people like your co-workers are an absolute joke. There's no way in the world you will ever to be able to convince me that weapon isn't an extension of their manhood. No way at all. I think there needs to be regulation of the strictest kind on guns. This country is too far gone to be able to realistically confiscate all guns, but we can certainly make it harder to get another one. When Charlton Heston said you'd have to pry his from his cold, dead hands, it occurred to me I'd like to see that happen. If your friends were able to demonstrate a clear and present need for a concealed gun, then let them have one. Likely, they've never, ever been in a situation that called for one, either before they owned one or now, and they never will. Meanwhile, they put everyone around them at an unnecessary risk of death or injury. I think strict background checks are a must. As long as the NRA refuses to allow them, they should compensate each gun homicide a million dollars. In law school, we're taught that Framers had no intention of arming as many citizens as allowable under the Second. They intended to have something tantamount to today's National Guard for each state to fend off the British. or in other words, militias. Over time though, as the threat of the British faded way and the war of 1812 become a distant memory, many people still had their private arms meant for militia purposes, and incredibly long story short, and gun ownership has morphed into the travesty is it today. Like racism, it will never be eradicated. For a civilized country there are two things as a nation to be ashamed of, guns and the death penalty, and it's frightening how often the concept behind each get intertwined. Look at either version of the Second Amendment. Explain to the rest of us where it says a person can carry a concealed gun to work at a software company. Explain to us the correlation between that the security of a free state. Utah already has police forces. Utah already has federal agents assigned to it. How is the state threatened by NOT having a gun at work? How is the worker threatened by not having a gun at work when there are already professional police? If there aren't enough police, vote for more. Lastly, contemplate the phrase "well regulated militia". The Second Amendment is the least understood of all the Amendments. In my opinion in dissent, Justice Stevens got it right: "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence."
Originally Posted By utahjosh So, you think that people should be able to have muskets and guns from the 1700s. And that's it, right? Except for those in the national guard, a police force, or some other type of service, is that right? In your ideal, when they are retired, do they have to give back their guns? You don't believe guns (outside of a 1776 model)should be used by hunters, ever?
Originally Posted By utahjosh I read every word, and responded directly to two points you made, asking for clarification. I also introduced a question regarding hunting. You don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If you read all that and those are your only questions, then you obviously aren't as intelligent as I thought. Moreover, I asked you several, and you've ignored them. Wear Kevlar to work. You'll need it someday.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So, you think that people should be able to have muskets and guns from the 1700s. And that's it, right?*** Scalia claimed in an interview that cannons (see where his mind is?) are off-limits because you can't bear them (gotta be able to bear the arms). So using his twisted logic, a shoulder-launched rocket is okay, but a cannon is not. Does that make a lick of sense to you, Josh? And given the fact that even average semi-automatic weapons of today are DEMONSTRABLY superior and more deadly than an average cannon, why on Earth should cannons be off-limits. Right? See where all this parsing gets us? So yeah, if you're going to attempt a literal interpretation, people in opposition to such insanity have every right to do the same.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "I don't know why anyone cares about opinions in matters such as these. Shouldn't statistical facts count for more than, "I think this.." or "My neighbor does that..."?" You would think so!
Originally Posted By ecdc Foolproof way to ensure gun control, courtesy of @phonte on Twitter. Have black people sign up for the NRA in droves and star walking around with guns in restaurants and policing neighborhoods. Comprehensive gun control legislation would happen overnight.
