Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Guns in Your Workplace Parking Lot? Thanks, NRA!

By Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet. Posted January 16, 2008.


The NRA is reviving its campaign to prohibit businesses from forbidding employees from keeping firearms in their cars.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Maybe the National Rifle Association feels enough time has elapsed since Robert Hawkins gunned down 13 Christmas shoppers at an Omaha mall. Maybe it knows a President Huckabee or Thompson is a pipe dream.

In any case, the NRA is back in the Georgia legislature, reviving its campaign to prohibit businesses from forbidding employees from keeping firearms in their cars.

The bill was defeated as an obscene sequel to the Virginia Tech shootings back in April despite NRA threats to Georgia lawmakers that a vote for adjournment would be a vote against the bill and earn them an NRA"F."

The Georgia "parking lot" bill is modeled after an Oklahoma law written after eight workers at a Weyerhaeuser plant in Valliant, Okla., were fired for having guns in their vehicles in 2002. When ConocoPhillips, which employs 3,000 in Oklahoma and feared the writing on the wall, challenged the law -- since struck down by federal courts but under appeal -- NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre vowed revenge.

"We're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," he thundered in 2005, announcing a boycott that no one, including ConocoPhillips, noticed.

Meanwhile, the American Bar Association condemned the parking lot law as a violation of property rights at its annual meeting in 2007, noting that 800 people a year are killed by guns in the U.S. workplace.

Of course most of the world goes to work, school and the store without the help of a firearm and enjoys the fact that others did the same.

But the NRA says property owners and municipalities that ban firearms violate its members' rights.

"You could have a constitutional right to have a firearm in your home, and you could ride around with it in your car, but you couldn't stop anywhere. You could have every gas station, every hotel, every motel put off limits," says LaPierre. "So, in effect, this [banned weapons on parking lots] is a wrecking ball for the Second Amendment. It's also a blueprint for totally eviscerating and nullifying right-to-carry legislation in 38 states in our country."

Last year a similar parking lot bill in Florida that even prohibited churches and hospitals from banning firearms was resoundingly defeated with the help of the Florida Retail Federation and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, which are conversant with gun shot costs.

Nor have the string of Miami-Dade police shootings since then -- starting with police officer Jose Somohano and three of his colleagues in September and continuing through the slaying of James Walker just last week -- helped the NRA cause in Florida.

The NRA is assuring the Georgia business community that the parking lot law wouldn't mean they'd be liable for gun violence on their property "unless the employer anticipated and failed to prevent an armed criminal act by a specific individual on the premises" and that their insurance costs would go down not up.

But Joe Fleming, senior vice president for government affairs at the Georgia Chamber of Commerce says the NRA's message to its members, "If you hunt or own a gun, you'll be fired!" is fear mongering.

The NRA has already "threatened all Georgia senators who fail to fall on bended knee with [receiving] 'F's' on the next NRA re-election scorecard," he writes in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. "Those senators who don't succumb to the NRA's bully tactics, name-calling, temper tantrums, insults and lies will be subjected to election-year retaliation."

Even NRA member Bob Thornton, a former liquor store owner, says enough is enough, "I really object to the government getting involved to say what's allowed on my property," said the Arnoldsville, Ga., resident at the kickoff news conference for the law in January in Atlanta, clad in a "Wayne Never Asked Me" T-shirt and heckling LaPierre.

But Chris Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution sees other demographics than its members being oppressed by parking lot gun bans, including "workers, like the single mother with an abusive ex, who comply with these rigid policies [and] are forced to decide between their paychecks and their safety" and evangelicals because "corporate lobbyists in Florida have defiantly told legislators that they can even ban Bibles from workers' cars."

And while most women would rather see their abusive ex disarmed than arm themselves, it may be too late to quibble.

The fast-tracked NRA bill is expected to reach a floor vote in the Senate by the end of the week, three days after a Rules Committee hearing.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nra, second amendment, firearms, parking lots

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hawkins and the Va Tech nut could have been stopped
Posted by: thornwolf on Jan 16, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would have been stopped long before they killed as many people as they did if honest citizens were not prevented from arming themselves. If law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then homicidal nut cases and criminals have a field day because they don't give a damn about any law and will be armed.

At that virginia law school a couple of years ago, when some guy was threatening people with a gun, he was stopped by legally armed students before he could harm anyone.

In Albany, New York, an elderly couple drove home invaders half their age out of the house and then called police who apprehended the invaders. How do you suppose the oldsters did that? It wasn't by shaking their finger at the invaders.

The press often won't report it when law-abiding citizens stop crazy people and criminals who have guns, but it happens more often that you might guess.

Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where there were no criminals, no violence, no need for self defense? That's something we can look forward to in a century or three, maybe, but in the meantime, everyone has a natural right to defend themselves from whatever threatens life, limb or property, especially life. This has always been true.

A Florida carjacker was asked why he targeted rental cars. The answer was that Florida residents can carry, but out-of-staters could not, and rental cars are more likely to carry non-residents than residents, so his chances of jacking someone with a gun were minimized by targeting rental cars.

I asked a friend from the South why people seem so polite in the South. 'Cause they think y'all have a gun, is what he said. I asked why they would think that; he told me it's because they have one. that reminded me of the Robert Heinlein quote, "An armed society is a polite society." There's an awful lot of truth to that.

Look at the experience in the UK, which disarmed its citizens in 1997. Gun crime soared as a result. Up by 35% in some years. It has seemed to "stabilize" in the last year or two, but at a rate much higher than it was before the ban. And no wonder, the criminals still have their guns but the law-abiding citizen has been relieved of his, which the criminals know and take advantage of.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an armed society is a safer society and that a disarmed society is a vulnerable society. Listen, I don't even own a gun, but I insist on my right to own one and carry one for protection if I choose to, and I much prefer that any criminal not know that I do not have a gun. I'd rather have them figure I do have one.

I used to live in New York City and I always gave the subtle, unspoken impression that I carried. People just thought I packed heat. No one bothered me in any neighborhood, and I worked in a very rough neighborhood. I didn't actually carry, but they all thought I did and they were very polite to me on the street, as I was to them.

Until we all learn to get along on our own, until we eliminate greed, hunger, poverty, racism, prohibition, and a host of other social ills, we had better not disarm ourselves, else the criminal class will walk all over us and who knows what the government will do.

And anyway, why should a law-abiding citizen be deprived of this means of defense? Because there could be an accident and an innocent person, a child perhaps, could be killed or injured? That's a valid concern because it does happen and something needs to be done about that. Regulations regarding storage perhaps. Stiffer penalties for not securing one's weapon, sure. Education, required classes, ok, but not taking the guns away altogether because that makes us all potential victims.

Read the Founders' remarks on this. They knew what they were talking about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: gazooks
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: gazooks
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: gazooks
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: OK Corral Solution Posted by: Deep
If you can make it out to your car for your gun then keep going
Posted by: cinattra on Jan 16, 2008 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no reason for anyone to have a gun in their car at work. If you can make it out to your car to get the hypothetical gun then you need to keep on going until you are out of harms way. Why would you re-enter the situation that you just exited from safely?

If there are other lives in danger then that is what the police are for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe you can... Posted by: SparkyClinton
The NRA's right on this one
Posted by: willie.horton on Jan 16, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a concealed carry permit. If I worked for a company that banned firearms in my car in the parking lot, they would also be preventing me from carrying the firearm on my way to and from work.
Would the company then accept liability for my safety on the commute? (They would if anything happened: my lawyer would tear them apart).
Bottom line: This law is needed, in all 50 states. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not entirely Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Not entirely Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The NRA's right on this one Posted by: casimmons23
No matter how many guns you "own", Big Business is still winning.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 16, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it. The NRA is nothing more than a corporatist company whose only business is to sell more WMDs just to maximize their profits at all costs. If the NRA really cared about your rights, they would be expending their energy against Bush/Cheney's spying program and hammering both parties in Congress before letting them grant Bush one blank check after another. As for carrying guns to work, it's a sick puppy joke. Guns are not going to get you a better paying job or benefits. It's bad enough that America produces more DISGRUNTLED employees than ever before and yet allowing them more weapons only hurts the innocent employees because employers are generally well guarded in advance. America's deep obsession with guns and violence is what dragged this country into wars for oil and other natural resources especially Iraq.

PEACE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ??????? Posted by: gellero
» Re: ??????? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: ??????? Posted by: Redviper
It's a Right!!!
Posted by: alxtav on Jan 16, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A well armed populace is the best defense against liberty. "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"
Google Video: Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's a Right!!! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Affordability Posted by: gellero
» Why pay taxes to the CIA then? Posted by: maxpayne
Old Cliche'
Posted by: Axiom69 on Jan 16, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd rather have a gun in my hand then a cop on the phone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

second amendment
Posted by: karyse on Jan 16, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Period. No other argument is necessary. Unfortunately, Belief in the "mommy government" is so strong on this issue that otherwise rational citizens have become completely blind.

Most people reading Alternet recognize the similarity between Hitler's Germany and Bush's U.S. but many refuse to recognize that one of the earliest laws Hitler passed was to disarm the citizens making them completely vunerable to any brownshirt or thug. Flight was the only choice at that point.

Firearms give protection. I was once asked why I wasn't afraid to live alone on a dirt road far from the police. "There's no crime out here," I answered, "we're all armed and nosy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FREEDOM LOST ??? Posted by: gellero
» Red herring. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: ed herring. Posted by: karyse
» property Posted by: YogiBear
» Hitler's Germany Posted by: gellero
» RE: Hitler's Germany Posted by: casimmons23
» RE: Nazis and the Gun control myth Posted by: parmenicleitus
Property rights of individuals take precedence over the 2nd ammendment...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 16, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...whose language specifically prohibits the government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

I can choose to prohibit visitors from carrying in my house. A business owner should have the same right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting argument here Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Hypotheticals notwithstanding... Posted by: ABetterFuture
You gun nuts make me sick
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 16, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't wait until Obama gets into office and begins going after the gun companies. The NRA is really a lobby that uses wacko gun nuts to do the work for these big weapons corporations. Go look at the ads these companies put in gun nut magazines to see how they create violence.

In my neighborhood on many nights, I hear the gun nuts shooting off their weapons. My partner saved a kid on our block who was shot in the face last year. I've had guns pulled on me in traffic.

The 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to a National Guard --- a right taken away by the federal government during the Reagan administration. If these 2nd Amendment gun nuts are so concerned about the Constitution, they should focus their efforts on bringing all National Guard troops home to do the jobs these men and women signed up for, and not fighting the federal government's wars overseas.

I'm frankly sick of how this small minority with lots of money continues to silence the majority on the issue of gun control. But all of this is going to change come November. The people are getting ready to take back our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ah, the inflection argument. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» s/b STATUTES (nt) Posted by: brunowe
» Nice selective quoting. Posted by: pball
» RE: Nice selective quoting. Posted by: Cooltruth
2nd Amendment is the last defense from tyranny
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jan 16, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author is a fool. If I were a disgruntled employee inclined to go on a rampage at work I don't think I would be too concerned with their "no firearms" policy in the parking lot. The author has an awful lot of faith in government's ability to protect the citizenry via police and faith in its ability to protect the citizens from themselves but precious little faith in law-abiding individuals.

The rest of the bill of rights has been evicerated. For whatever reason the 2nd Amendment seems to get people a little more riled up than the rest of them. That is a sad thing but I, for one, will count that as a small blessing because if the 2nd Amendment goes there is nothing left to stop the total takeover of the state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My case in point...and I rest it. Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: Good Grief Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: Posted by: parmenicleitus
And while the gun nuts keep worrying about "gun rights", SCOTUS delivers another MAJOR BLOW to
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 16, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the working, lower, middle class ! And yes, gun nuts, you too are the victims.

Corporate Fraud Lawsuits Restricted

It's bad enough that they'd be all for allowing corporations to sue individuals/customers as they "felt like it" but with corporate scandals getting worse, the corporatist back court sure has a way of doing what Osama bin Laden couldn't even accomplish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And here's a challenge to the gun nuts - hint, FACEBOOK
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 16, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.alternet.org/story/72556/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Gun Nut" monniker is getting kind of old...
Posted by: lightmind on Jan 16, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because the free-spirited among us choose to practice self-determination and have the option of defense with something other than broom? Or maybe just roll over and play dead? the real nuts and kooks are the abhorrent people that label and spew fear in their idealistic belief that when "the people" are disarmed the world will be a safe place? What dreamworld do these freedom-hating thugs come from? So let's see, it's Ok for police, military, the hundreds of agencies as well as the criminal aggressors among us to have weapons? Irrational arguments based on fear hold no weight. While you're waiting for Utopia LEAVE US ALONE. You may just be thankful you did. Thankfully, not everyone is a coward.

BTW, if the whole world should evolve and find it unneccessary to have war, if violent crime were no more and all the planet's inhabitants were to agree to beat their swords into plowshares I for one would be most happy to join in. Now that would be progress. Disarming the population in a one-sided spree of stupidity invariably leads to tyranny. Or don't you understand history?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A clarification Posted by: parmenicleitus
» LOL Posted by: gellero
When are The "Nanny Government" Types Going to Let This Dumb Shit Die?!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1 on Jan 16, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look! If you don't want a gun then DON'T BUY ONE!!! I LIKE my guns! I don't love them, and I'm not a gun nut!

Back in WW2, the main reason the Japanese Army didn't invade the United States, is because one of their generals informed the Japanese military there was a "rifle behind every tree!"

We're at a time when we need to protecting ALL of our rights! Not trying to toss them in the trash!

You think the cops are going to defend you? Well! Ask Eugene Stiler how well that scenario works! Every cop out there wants your guns! Then they can kick your door down, drag you out in the street and do whatever they want! Think it won't happen? Well, guess what? When they get rid of the second amendment, they can get rid of all the others!

You anti-gun types are the main reason the south, and the mid-west states are solidly Republican! Every time I try to talk one of my North Carolina neighbors into voting Democrat, I always get the same answer: "I'm not voting for no Democrat! They want to take my guns away!"

Until the Democratic Party becomes willing to protect ALL of our civil rights, the right wing will rule America! And when the next "Rethuglican" gets sworn in in 2009, we'll have you to thank for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hogwash Posted by: parmenicleitus
Related news in Georgia
Posted by: wdarling on Jan 16, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lawmaker here in Georgia is currently advocating for amending state law to allow people to possess handguns while on state land. This is in reaction to a high profile case of a hiker in the north Georgia mountains being attacked and killed. Of course the lawmaker is saying that if she'd been able to carry a gun, she could have defended herself and everyone would be safer. Safer? There's are other pushes, statewide and just in Atlanta, for letting people carry guns into restaurants and concealed in their cars. Doesn't make me feel safe at all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: elated news in Georgia Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: elated news in Georgia Posted by: Redviper
Only weak people need weapons to feel big
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 16, 2008 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little man syndrome -- I've seen it so much in this world. I'm glad to say that none of you have shot me yet. I have been knifed by a weak person once --- he was out to kill me, and because he was unsuccessful, had to pay the price. He was lucky, even when I was fighting him for my life, I had more respect for life and didn't kill him.

That is something you gun nuts don't understand. Your very possession of a handgun means that you have no respect for life, not even your own. That is why so many of you use your handguns to take your own lives, or the lives of those you love.

I grew up in a very violent community. I doubt that most of you gun nuts have ever experienced such a world. I know gun nuts. I grew up with them. I've worked on the job with them. And, gun nuts, I am likely a much better shot than you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Only weak people need a big handgun Posted by: parmenicleitus
» THANK YOU Posted by: gellero
» RE: THANK YOU Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: THANK YOU Posted by: Axiom69
Doc Reality
Posted by: jfingers1 on Jan 16, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point in time, giving up guns would be absolutely regrettable. Seldom presented are the statistics showing how armed citizens have stopped numerous crimes.
The government would like nothing better than to disarm the citizenry. Is it not 'coincidental' Homeland Security visited the aforementioned mall 2 hours prior to the shooting or that after notifying the feds during the VTech shooting, they said not to do anything until they arrived, which was 2 hours later. It would appear to this observer that considering how the government has acted in the past, they will pursue all avenues to take the guns away.
Keep your guns and stock up, Blackwater is very well armed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

snub nose 38
Posted by: wittler youth on Jan 16, 2008 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my dad was a cop abd i rember him haveing a gun at church,,,never can tell when some nut jobs gonna shoot up your congration......didint happen in my dads time...it sure seems the case now..i say pocket pistoles for every one..settle your dispute between your selfs like they did back in the 1880s or after 1865..they were the law..pocket pistols were your sherif in your pocket..no puns intended.. man..this is creepy i goota git off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Also, I'd like to see the NRA and gun toters fight against the following "thought crime" bill
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 17, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.alternet.org/rights/73991/

Let's see if your guns will save you when this bill passes thereby CRIPPLING your thinking lest you get in "trouble".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TORY Posted by: gellero
» RE: A 'right' to violence? LOL! Posted by: parmenicleitus
A collective right applying only to the military?
Posted by: Axiom69 on Jan 17, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. If the second ammendment only applies to the military or armed forces and not to the individual, why did the founding fathers even bother including it? Isn't it common sense that the ARMED Forces would be armed?

2. In every instance where "the People" are referenced in the Bill of Rights, it refers to individuals. Why would the Second Ammendment be the only exception?

3. The founding Fathers feared a strong central government would lead to tyranny. Why would they have the government be the only entity with the "right" to have firearms?

4. The Founding Fathers wrote that everyone had the "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that if the government became destuctive to those ends that it was the duty of "the People" to alter or abolish it. How do you abolish a tyrannical government?

The founding Fathers knew that an armed populace was a free populace. Guns may help a criminal commit a crime but they prevent those of us who disagree with the government from sharing a cell with said criminal. Take away the second ammendment and the others will soon follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ????? Posted by: gellero
» RE: ????? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: ????? Posted by: Axiom69
» WELL SAID Posted by: gellero
Police cannot protect you
Posted by: magus65 on Jan 17, 2008 3:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The police cannot protect you because they aren't there and are rarely willing to protect you even when they are. As every cop knows their job is not to protect the public but to protect property.

Several years ago at a street celebration in Seattle 20 cowardly Seattle police officers watched as a young man was beaten to death over several minutes less than 25 feet away from them. The officers excused their cowardice by claiming they were afraid the crowd would riot if they tried to interfere thus risking the lives of police officers. Mind you, this was not a protest event just a mardi gras celebration. Every one of those officers should have been sentenced to being beaten to death in public but of course, they were cleared of all wrongdoing.

This is why I will continue to carry my gun to work and will not be leaving it behind in my car EVER. I will also have it with me in bars the bank and school zones as well.

Democrats and Republicans BOTH need to learn that the Constitution is not a list of suggestions that they can pick and choose from. Your odious laws to the contrary hold no moral authority and undermine the authority of all laws passed by congress since they cannot be respected when they compromise the authority of the document from which all legal authority springs.

If you really want gun control you need to recognize that their is only ONE legal way to do this - by repealing the second amendment. You just want things your way and you want it easy (without the necessity of changing the Constitution). Either have the guts to fight for a Constitutional change or back off. Idiotic misinterpretations of the Constitution which allow "exceptions" are treasonous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» MAGUS 65 Posted by: gellero
MAGUS 65
Posted by: gellero on Jan 17, 2008 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At last...the voice of a FREE MAN....!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» MAGUS 65 = gellero Posted by: maxpayne
What if the suit was about the 1st amendment?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 17, 2008 8:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"You could have a constitutional right to have a firearm in your home, and you could ride around with it in your car, but you couldn't stop anywhere. You could have every gas station, every hotel, every motel put off limits," says LaPierre. "So, in effect, this is a wrecking ball for the Second Amendment. It's also a blueprint for totally eviscerating and nullifying right-to-carry legislation in 38 states in our country."

Change "firearm" to "porn" and constitutional defenders might respect the NRA's stance a little better. Parking lots at work are private property and you parking there means you're agreeing to their rules. OTOH, them telling you what you can and cannot have in your car does, after a fashion, violate your own constitutional rights. What if companies could fire workers for having a naked lady dashboard statue, or a "Bush sucks" bumper sticker? Would that pose a problem to 1st amendment advocates?

If so, consider the constitutional protections of the 2nd amendment the same way.

I'm not trying to bypass the safety issue, just hoping to influence some people's possibly kneejerk outrage at the NRA's action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

militia
Posted by: karyse on Jan 18, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"militia" as it is used in the constitution does NOT refer to the National Guard, the Reserves, or any other state run military force. It means "all able bodied citizens" who can be called to duty in times of invasion etc.

Reading the comments on alternet on highly divisive issues is a perfect exercise in how (apparantly) the human brain works -- ignore the argument points, make up stuff at will, scream louder, rail about how stupid the other side is, take things out of context, and above all else maintain your position against all rationality.

On this issue, the "calmer" voice is the pro second amendment one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the gun nuts. Can't stop their URGE for guns just like the "whopper" freaks, can they?
Posted by: carsoncitygal on Jan 18, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If America is safer than before 9/11, why then do we need more guns? Sure, my husband and I are proud gun owners and will hunt at will despite the GOP ruining our hunting environment year after year, something the NRA refuses to address even as my husband asked them about it. But as some have pointed out, despite the abolition of gun control, America is still losing its freedom. But what's really interesting is the fact that for a strange reason guns are being distributed like candy. All this nonsense about what the founding father intended or even Hitler's intentions misses the point. We will never know what the Founding Fathers had really intended back when the 2nd Amendment was put in place but if one were to look at his or her history book and see what has happened since then, two things would stand out:

1. The Founding Fathers had learned their lesson that yes people will use their guns when their anger knows no bounds so just like appeasing dogs with meat, they made people "feel safe" on gun rights all the while going behind the public's back and reverting to corporatist elitism. Alexander Hamilton wouldn't have been a member of the Founding Fathers otherwise. Also note, that Thomas Jefferson was not a whole lot different from today's Democrats. Sure, he promised to "reduce" government but after after taking office did little to abolish Hamilton's National Bank much like today's Democrats enabling more of Bush's agenda.

2. The NRA and the war in Iraq have already tossed out the 2nd amendment. Very few gun nuts in this forum and elsewhere even bothered to read the 2nd Amendment but instead rely on the NRA's toxic sound bites similar to relying on a "whopper" for lunch rather than take a few minutes to make their own lunch. The key to the 2nd Amendment was WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Now let's look at the current situation. The US military is all messed up and corrupt from top to bottom and there's no regulation of the troops/contractors or they wouldn't be amorally shooting innocent bystanders in the Middle East and in the process stirring up the hornet's nest.

P.S.: My husband resigned from the NRA after being fed up with their politically "correct" attitude and even calling those of us who don't support the ongoing war and occupation in Iraq "unpatriotic". He and I now are members of a local hunting club that has high and kind regards for both the hunters and the environment, something you just won't find in the NRA these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow! Posted by: Redviper
HERE WE GO AGAIN
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 'Newspeak' of AlterNet,

Militia = Army and 'the People' = 'the State'.

"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."

And exactly how has the President ruined the hunting environment??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical rightwing bullshit Posted by: maxpayne
Historically
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a reaction against the European style, where 'the people' ( ie peasants and serfs) where prohibited from serious arms (ie war swords etc )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» parmenicleitus = gellero Posted by: maxpayne
Getting back to business, why should DISGRUNTLED employees be allowed to make matters worse for all?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 19, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the end, it's not their mean employers that lose but it's the rest of us employees in this country who will be shafted with undeserving punishments that have the most to lose. It's like one student misbehaving in class and the teacher punishing the entire class instead of actually making the offending student sit back, reflect on his/her mistake, and learn their lesson(s). It's bad enough that job security in America is a complete joke but don't expect all the firearms in the world to help you secure your job or get back your lost one.

As for keeping firearms in cars, car thefts and break-ins are on the rise and even as some will remember to keep it in their trucks, cars are NOT BULLETPROOF so it will only make it easier for gun thefts to exponentially increase.

CASE CLOSED !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Don't Generally Weigh in on Gun Control Issues but it's the Wingnut Mentality that bothers me!!
Posted by: yellow on Jan 20, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Government has the right to make laws that provide for the public safety. The US Constitution says so and, no not just by engaging in legal contortions with the overused commerce clause!! I despise the idea that people think that because they own a business or some other kind of property that the law stops at the edge of their domain. This is obviously wrong but the hallmark of the wingnut mentality. Of course, the NRA will argue that a person that wants to commit a gun crime on public premisis will do so no matter what and that the law will only inconvenience and criminalize otherwise law abiding and peaceful citizens exersizing their constitutional rights to bear arms and have them in their possession. To an extent they are correct. But they are also dogmatic and see the second amendment as absolute which it is not. Businesses want to respond to gun violence by making all the premesis on which they operate gun free so as to prevent a possible problem or to have a legal basis for prosecuting a potential criminal who intends or attempts harm to others. It may not prevent the next gun battle or massacre but it will ensure that there is an additional charge to add to the rest that will keep those who engage in gun crimes in such public place in prison for a very long period of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wingnut Mentality Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Wingnut Mentality Posted by: yellow
» RE: Wingnut Mentality Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Wingnut Mentality Posted by: Cooltruth
guns in car
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Jan 20, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think they should allow alcohol in the cars with the guns. Then maybe we will have some really good shootouts. Perfect way to settle arguments at work,don't you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MakeMyVoteCount
Posted by: rlasner@tampabay.rr.com on Jan 21, 2008 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is all a mute argument. They don't have the right to search a persons vehicle, that would be invasion of privacy. They can't make a person tell them they have a gun in thier car, that would be self incrimination.
It is all just positioning by big business to avoid any liability. If they have the rule of no guns on the property then, they have limited legal or financial responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I were reading Alternet for the first time I would be certain I'd
Posted by: johngary66 on Jan 23, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
stumbled into a rabid rightwing blog! I don't know anymore. Maybe that's karl rove's plan. Take over all the progressive blogs. I'm sure he's a member in good standing of the NRA just like the idiot chimp. Do you really want those guys carrying a gun? We've seen what Cheney can do when he's armed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rita
Posted by: ressless on Jan 23, 2008 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I have in my car, my pocket, my home, ain't nobody's business but my own. Alternet claims to support freedom; nobody's free until we are all free.

On the other hand, if we could make the no-guns-in-your-car law apply to cops?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]