CS Monitor: Will jihad-style attack boost 'bring gun to work' laws?

Baccusboy · Sep 27, 2014

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0...yle-attack-boost-bring-gun-to-work-laws-video

Gotta hand it to them for including their own form of "balance" to the end of the story...

Police also confirmed that Vaughan was acting as an individual and not on behalf of the local sheriff’s department when he fired his weapon. But the fact that Vaughan is a trained police officer may at least in part undercut the argument by gun proponents that everybody should have the right to bring their gun to work.

When I read an article like this, as a former journalist, I immediately see that the entire point of the article was to stir debate from THIS angle.

outrider58 · Sep 27, 2014

I like the idea of bring your gun to work day. Not applicable to postal workers.

traveller · Sep 27, 2014

outrider58 said:
I like the idea of bring your gun to work day. Not applicable to postal workers.

IF more postal workers brought a gun to work, 'going postal' would be a pretty brief event.

HauptsAriba · Sep 28, 2014

Baccusboy said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0...yle-attack-boost-bring-gun-to-work-laws-video

Gotta hand it to them for including their own form of "balance" to the end of the story...

When I read an article like this, as a former journalist, I immediately see that the entire point of the article was to stir debate from THIS angle.

Right, so people who do not have the ( luxury ) of working with former, armed LEO are just fodder for the JIHAD, right? These people will stop at nothing to push their anti liberty agenda. It's sickening and shows their hand in clear light.

Today, a journalist would say that when the Japs said that they did not invade the us mainland because they knew that (behind every blad of grass was an American with a gun)
What they were expressing was that the level of racism in the states was so high that they did not want to occupy such a land.

They have said such things..

rseymorejr · Sep 28, 2014

"Much like a private homeowner is able to tell his guests whether they can bring a gun into his yard, FedEx should have the right to decide what it will and will not allow on its private property,"

OK, Fair enough. But If my employer specifically denies me the right to self defense while on their premises then I think they should assume complete responsibility for my safety.

outrider58 · Sep 28, 2014

traveller said:
IF more postal workers brought a gun to work, 'going postal' would be a pretty brief event.

Never thought of it that way but I was half joking.

Pinecone · Sep 28, 2014

rseymorejr said:
"Much like a private homeowner is able to tell his guests whether they can bring a gun into his yard, FedEx should have the right to decide what it will and will not allow on its private property,"

OK, Fair enough. But If my employer specifically denies me the right to self defense while on their premises then I think they should assume complete responsibility for my safety.

Agreed. And they should be subject to a lawsuit if they fail to provide the level of protection that your carrying would.

Mr H · Sep 28, 2014

As far as the end of the piece is concerned, isn't this why we advocate at least some training for anyone who uses a firearm, let alone for carry?!!

Vile Shadow · Sep 28, 2014

Mr H said:
As far as the end of the piece is concerned, isn't this why we advocate at least some training for anyone who uses a firearm, let alone for carry?!!

If registering for selective service is mandatory, firerarms training should be as well.

outrider58 · Sep 28, 2014

Pinecone said:
Agreed. And they should be subject to a lawsuit if they fail to provide the level of protection that your carrying would.

Yes. His widow should make out ok. :innocent0

yellowfin · Sep 29, 2014

Mr H said:
As far as the end of the piece is concerned, isn't this why we advocate at least some training for anyone who uses a firearm, let alone for carry?!!

If and only if it is incorporated as required high school curriculum. Otherwise anti gun types in government will make it expensive and inconvenient to deter people.

john_bud · Sep 29, 2014

Mr H said:
As far as the end of the piece is concerned, isn't this why we advocate at least some training for anyone who uses a firearm, let alone for carry?!!

"advocate" is different from "mandate".

We don't advocate nor mandate training before being allowed to use the 1st ammendment, nor the others. Right? It is surely prudent to be adequately trained, but once "training" is mandated, the door is cracked, the wedge is placed and soon you have to pay more than you can afford and take longer than you can spend. Sort of sounds like a few states I know of...

Mr H · Sep 29, 2014

john_bud said:
"advocate" is different from "mandate".

We don't advocate nor mandate training before being allowed to use the 1st ammendment, nor the others. Right? It is surely prudent to be adequately trained, but once "training" is mandated, the door is cracked, the wedge is placed and soon you have to pay more than you can afford and take longer than you can spend. Sort of sounds like a few states I know of...

I say "advocate" specifically because it is prudent... but is something an individual should decide for themselves.

I take exception with "mandate", except where someone chooses a particular set of actions and proper training is essential for safety and security.

Z_Man · Sep 29, 2014

Firearms training should be manditory, but it should not be a requirement of owning a firearm.

senior year of high school required course: safe and proper operation of firearms.

I know the progressives would surely tell you that is a very easy class.

if you see a firearm, S**t your pants run away and cry, dial 911 once you can find a phone

traveller · Sep 29, 2014

Z_Man said:
Firearms training should be manditory, but it should not be a requirement of owning a firearm.

senior year of high school required course: safe and proper operation of firearms.

Many highschools in Alaska have indoor shooting ranges. But then, they dont have liberals either...

Vile Shadow · Sep 30, 2014

traveller said:
Many highschools in Alaska have indoor shooting ranges. But then, they dont have liberals either...

That's because, much like Sarah Palin, the population of Alaska consists largely of backwoods hillbillies who simply don't care about the safety of their children. :rolleyes:

Z_Man · Sep 30, 2014

traveller said:
Many highschools in Alaska have indoor shooting ranges. But then, they dont have liberals either...

too cold for liberals, their ideas don't make sense below 0 when the government doesn't pay your heating bill, and you can't grow organic kale in your garden

yellowfin · Sep 30, 2014

traveller said:
Many highschools in Alaska have indoor shooting ranges. But then, they dont have liberals either...

Two improvements to make to the rest of the states.

CS Monitor: Will jihad-style attack boost 'bring gun to work' laws?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Teecha, teecha

Eats Bacon Raw

The one with two L

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Eats Bacon Raw

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

...

Eats Bacon Raw

Pro 2A Gastronome

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

The one with two L

...

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics