Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:01 AM PDT by rktman
In Oklahoma City last week, a business owner and reserve deputy sheriff named Mark Vaughan shot and injured a man who had beheaded one of his employees and, by all accounts, was in the process of attempting to decapitate another. In doing so, a spokesman for the police told reporters, Vaughan had likely saved the lives of “untold others” and he deserved to be treated as a “hero.” Almost universally, local law enforcement concurred. “The incident was not going to stop if he didn’t stop it,” Sergeant Jeremy Lewis explained to the Associated Press. “It could,” he suggested darkly, “have got a lot worse.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Furthermore, the data that suggests that gun ownership automatically makes you a riskier individual is nothing but a custom tailored lie constructed by liberals to provide them with a false talking point and a means to attack the second amendment and the people that support it as in the case of using this bogus data to compel insurers to drop gun owners.
We are at war with the leftists. As such, I'm not going to waste a second of my time worrying about the unintended consequences of any of the tactical decisions we make in this struggle.
To hell with the consequences. We are at war and the consequences of losing this war are my only concern.
I do not presume that a CCW is necessary. I assume that when the state licenses someone to do something (in this case, carry) that a business can rely on that judgement by the state from a civil liability stand point. This is similar to the licensing of armed private security.
Police forces are not there to provide protection services. SCOTUS has already ruled that the police do not carry the burden of protection.
After disarming their employees, the liability should shift to the business. IF at time of trial, the business wants to assert that they provided “enough” measures to ensure the safety of their employees, they would be free to bring in such mitigation. However, the assumption of liability is with the employer as they have taken away a individuals ability to defend themselves.
Possibly it should always have applied to the state. But it didn't.
The Supremes consistently ruled up to 1925 that the B of R did not apply to state action. Then they gradually started "incorporating" the rights in the first 8 amendments.
Arguably, 2A was not incorporated till 2010 with the McDonald decision. In fact, 2A is obviously still not fully incorporated, as a number of states and cities are still "infringing" gun rights all over the place. Notably NYC and Chicago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Personally, I think a good assignment would be to research if men “really” landed on the moon.
How does that have any effect on your argument about the 2nd Amendment’s wording? All that says is that involuntary servitude is allowed, it doesn’t say anything about the 2nd amendment or the interpretation thereof.
Well reasoned and said.
Your company has the right to enforce its firearms at work policy. You have the right to seek work elsewhere if you don’t like it.
“...the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government.”
A bit off topic, but the militia of today is not likely to suppress the insurrection. The militia will be a part of it against an overreaching regime.
NR-which fired John Derbyshire for telling too much truth, and backing it using statistics.
The “insurrection” at this point is the career politicians perverting our Republic.
Amen! See my tagline, part two.
“... And on that day, those who stand by my side... Those I shall call my Brothers...”
And, I guess Sisters too. I know quite a few women who can shoot with the best of them.
I should have been more clear.
I was talking about insurance companies declining coverage to those who allow legal guns on their property. It’s is a deal with the devil, as some have pointed out, but the credit card companies who are declining to do business with gun dealers tell me this is a deal that has to be made.
I’m opposed to overriding private property rights, forcing companies to allow guns on their property. The equitable solution to that is to warn those who do prohibit guns that they are, in essence, guaranteeing the safety of those people who do enter. Therefore they can be held responsible if a criminal comes in and injures anyone.
No need to hide, it’s safe to talk in the open.
What would you do about the Credit card companies who refuse to do business with gun dealers?
I agree with that.
Involuntary servitude means loss of freedom, any freedom or all freedom. It is permitted for those in prison.
The 2A was never incorporated because it always applied to the States. You, as a Conservative, should understand "strict construction" and "original intent." If not then what the hell are you arguing about in regards to the other amendments? Without strict construction there is no actual concrete Constitution, only a collection of rules changeable to suit the occasion or the rulers.
The unconstitutionality involved is, of course, state and federal government interference in the insurance market at all. Government has only the duty to ensure contract and purity of product which can all come under the weights and measures clause.
Say it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.