Bill to allow state workers to bring guns to workplace passes through committee
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/13/politics/bill-to-allow-state-workers-to-bring-guns-to-workplace-passes-through-committee/AUGUSTA, Maine — A legislative committee approved a bill on Monday that would allow state employees to bring guns to their workplace, provided they have a concealed weapons permit and keep the firearm locked in their vehicle and out of sight.
LD 1603, sponsored by Rep. Dale Crafts, R-Lisbon Falls, was modeled after last year’s bill, LD 35, which drew spirited debate before it passed in the House and Senate and became law. That bill allowed private sector employees with concealed weapons permits to bring guns to their workplace if they were left in the car.
Sen. Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, the Senate chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, said the new bill’s intent is simply to give state employees the same rights as private sector employees.
The measure was approved by the committee on a 7-5 vote.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sedona
(3,769 posts)it's the new Arizona 
I'm not willing to turn into Arizona unless we get some of their sunshine!
RKP5637
(67,086 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That never happened....
DavidDvorkin
(19,465 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
IamK
(956 posts)
Kablooie
(18,606 posts)It's heart warming that they would go to the trouble to pass a special bill to help angry workers express their rage more easily. Very thoughtful.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)How so?
Kablooie
(18,606 posts)He can just pop out to the parking lot, grab his gun and quickly show his co-workers who's boss.
(I'm being bitterly facetious, of course.)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)a law to the contrary would stop them? Really?
I'm sure that you know this proposed law does nothing to enable criminal action. Despite your hyperbole.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Is it possible that someone just fired from a job would have time to cool off and distract themselves if they had to go home first to get their gun?
I believe so.
Is it possible that an employer is less likely to fire someone if they know the parking lot might be full of guns?
I can believe that.
Is it possible that there could be more defensive gun uses preventing rape, robbery, or violence in workplace parking lots?
I believe it.
I'm really not sure how the trade-offs would work out. I don't think anyone can know for certain, but we might get some idea with enough study. I do think that an employer telling employees what they can and can't have in their car is an infringement on privacy.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Namely, that, if a law doesn't instantly prevent 100% of undesirable behaviors, it isn't worth passing? By such logic, we might as well legalize murder - after all, it's not like making murder illegal has completely eliminated murder.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)not 'facetious'.
But hey, what's it matter if he (or she) can grab a smoke while they're at it? The convenience of a car is really understated here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Well, it does, to the victims who might otherwise choose to arm themselves in self defense.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)... and out of sight.
Awwww.... that's sweet. Now they can go caress it and talk baby talk to it in the car on their breaks.
jkappy
(220 posts)and return to work refilled with the authority they need to boss around their underlings.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)They regularly out number men in the classes I teach.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Its not political, its practical. Armed gays don't get bashed...that kind of thing
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Not only is the 'worship of guns' not exclusive to males, it's far less common among people than many of the anti-gun crowd can imagine.
BeGoodDoGood
(201 posts)A weapon locked in your car is useless when you are at work in a building or job site. Maybe this is just a way to get the camel's nose under the tent.
Walt
Lasher
(27,535 posts)I believe that is the point, and a valid one IMO.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)you nailed it... 
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)After popping your boss and a few co-workers, you could unwind with a little road rage, or in WV maybe do a little target practice on those pesky road signs.
Lasher
(27,535 posts)"After popping your boss and a few co-workers, you could unwind with a little road rage, or in WV maybe do a little target practice on those pesky road signs."
Stereotype much?
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)I see little reason to think that workers aren't already doing it.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Oh well, I forgot to leave it in the car. Now, my boss is a really big A-hole and he's been talking about firing me. What could possibly go wrong?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Wouldn't do any good with me. My car is so far away in the mega-complex I work at, that by the time I got back to my boss's office with my shotgun, I probably would have cooled down.
Darn.
Response to Maine-ah (Original post)
Hutzpa This message was self-deleted by its author.
saras
(6,670 posts)Given gun owners' unanimous and impeccable obedience to gun control laws, I'm sure there will be no problems at all.
jkappy
(220 posts)Skwid
(86 posts)grr
primavera
(5,191 posts)It gets hard to keep track of them, there are so many. Despite the fact that five right wing escaped mental patients on the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate that whole pesky militia business, even they aren't psychotic enough to have ruled that the Constitution guarantees one the right to bear any and all arms any place one likes. So let's stop pretending that there's some sacrosanct Constitutional right being violated if you aren't allowed to bring an Uzi into a courtroom, okay?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
boppers
(16,588 posts)*No* right is absolute.
Not a single one.
Convicted murderers do not have a right to bear arms in prison.
So, if there aren't any absolutes, where are lines drawn?
primavera
(5,191 posts)... in Heller. He basically said, in the same breath, that everyone had the right to have any guns anywhere, but that nothing in his statement should be construed to mean that everyone has the right to carry any guns anywhere. Hello? Earth to rabid dog?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)
qb
(5,924 posts)nearly every day.
Lasher
(27,535 posts)If a coworker decides to go postal, they won't be worried about a $500 fine (or whatever) for having a gun locked in their vehicle at your employer's parking lot. As a matter of fact, after someone has killed people, prosecutors charge them with murder and never try to include a relatively minor conviction for such illegal possession.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Following this same line of not-logic, DUI laws shouldn't be enacted because people will still ignore them.
Lasher
(27,535 posts)There is no equivalency between driving drunk and legally carrying a concealed weapon.
As Imak said upthread, for over 10 years people in Kentucky have had a law similar to the one being proposed in Maine and they have had no associated problems. That is a proper analogy.
Law-abiding people in Maine don't have a gun available in the workplace today, and wouldn't have one there if the proposed legislation passes - unless they work in their car in the parking lot. So folks in Maine who *do* care about a $500 fine don't have a gun available in the workplace today. And neither would they have one if this legislation passes, as it should.
If a coworker decides to go postal, they wouldn't care about a law against bringing a gun into the parking lot of their workplace, as I said in my reply to qb. They wouldn't care about DUI laws either.
drynberg
(1,648 posts)Cooler heads will surely prevail. I am a Mainer and we ain't nuts. Just because 39% voted for a RW Gov. LePaige, the rest of the legislature are bound to "smarter up" (I crossing everything I can...)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So, it's been a big problem in other states where it's allowed? Cites, please?
jpak
(41,756 posts)Maybe they are afeared of their own.
yup
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Skwid
(86 posts)It's hard to tell how inclusive your bigotry really is.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skwid
(86 posts)
jpak
(41,756 posts)yup
Skwid
(86 posts)In that case, a lot of people will certainly conclude you're a member of a class of assholes.
Or does it only work in one direction?
jpak
(41,756 posts)yup
Response to jpak (Reply #65)
Post removed
boppers
(16,588 posts)I'm curious.
hack89
(39,171 posts)NRA Support For Democrats In Key Midterm Races Frustrating GOP
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/House/2010/1008/Why-the-NRA-is-rallying-behind-endangered-Democrats
Why the NRA is rallying behind endangered Democrats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/nra-endorsing-democrats_n_752790.html
NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicans
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/06/130393162/nra-endorses-14-house-democrats
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)They seem pretty devoted to electing Republicans.
On edit: I see they do support the occasional Democrat, but still...
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)of course we do.
Those guns will protect us from other workers carrying guns.
Maine and New Hampshire legislators must have funny stuff in their drinking water, in New Hampshire there's a bill to get rid of lunch breaks, in Maine the Governor is a racist scum idiot.
Who votes for these people?
Skwid
(86 posts)You don't care about the thugs who will do what they want with illegal guns, you just want to make sure honest people can't exercise their right to self-defense. Got it.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)a jaundiced mind like yours gives yourself permission to kill another human being. Most people who kill people with guns already know their victims, and kill them anyway. Some of them kill themselves, Those are what we know are FACTS!!! You choose to ignore this, or say some non-sequitur argument because you want to own your gun and take it anywhere, even to your place work, (heaven help your co-workers!).
Democrats like you have a part of your brain missing, and consider regulation only worthwhile if you don't disagree with the opinion. You're okay about laws against speeding or drunk driving but when it infringes upon your extension of your reproduction devices you find a reason to launch a non-logical argument about your unregulated rights to own an Oozie.
Let's get rid of speed limits on our roads! Let's continue to allow drunks to get more drunk and drive! Let's allow any any man to have his way with any woman because you or some other man on the planet wants to do that! Let's put people of dark skin back in indentured servitude, as so many in the south would love to do again!
OF COURSE, some people die on our highways due to speeders, drunk drivers, more women get raped, but fewer than there would be if we had no speed limits, no drunk driving laws, no rape laws. Laws don't stop ALL bad behavior, but laws reduce behaviors. We know this, and yet you want no laws against you owning a gun and taking it to work? Unbelievable!
Laws prevent and reduce tragic outcomes! They do this daily. If you don't know this as a fact, go back to school, learn about speed limits, learn about drunk drivers, learn about rape laws, and learn about the history of black people after the Civil War. You obviously have never learned enough to get out of 4th grade.
Gun advocates are the most educationally uneducated Americans who just want to own their guns, no matter what, with nothing of value to offer in their argument, proving my point, they are the worst persons to have a gun in their hands.
Skwid
(86 posts)your strawmen, the bottom line is that you have zero chance of extinguishing my Second Amendment rights, and you can call me all the juvenile kindergarten names you can think up, you're not taking away my tools I choose to employ to protect myself and my loved ones. I wonder if you're familiar with the Black Knight from the Monty Python movie...
Response to Skwid (Reply #53)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #54)
Post removed
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)actually see your penis, put it on the internet, all of what happens when I do that..but .. if you want to open your penis showing your face at the same time...as I am willing to do...
Obviously you would rather I suck your gun as you shoot it off.
Discusting post, reported. Flagged, you are so juvenile in your posts...proving that you value your gun like your penis.
So typical of people like you. You simply cannot separate your penis from your guns, and you insist upon your penis rights over all rationality. I hope you have 5000 children and must pay for all of your 5000 penis exploits. You seem so proud of it.
By the way, post your name and address, and phone number, 30-100 people will show up to suck your penis, and take your guns away.. But I doubt you want that to happen, but you might like that sucking of your penis.
Skwid
(86 posts)and I spent more than a few years as a policeman and in the military defending the Constitution which gives you the perfect right to be a turd. I stopped 4 guys with clubs and bats from smashing in my and my boyfriend's heads in Tampa a few years ago walking from the Plantation by producing and showing my sidearm. They backed away, lucky for them. If they had kept coming I would have gladly and with absolutely no regret, killed the bastards one by one.
With friends like you, I sure as fuck don't need any enemies.
boppers
(16,588 posts)That's the context.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Holy fucking spaghetti monster, this place is amazing.
primavera
(5,191 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)Do you know how many of the 30,000 gun-related fatalities that occur in this country each year are ultimately found to be lawful uses of deadly force? Approximately 400 on average. That's barely 1%. Your "honest people" defending themselves are a bloody tiny minority. The remainder are just bloody.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)let alone someone being killed. The numbers of people killed in self-defense do not define the scope of self-defense with firearms.
primavera
(5,191 posts)But the trouble I have with your assertion that most "successful self-defense by gun" incidents don't involve shots being fired is that, in most of those cases, we never really know whether there was, in fact, a bona fide threat to life and limb, so we never really know whether those were necessary uses of guns, ergo, we don't know whether they were "successful." How many of your "successful" incidents involved someone the gun bearer merely perceived to be threatening, s/he waived a gun at them, and they went away, when, in reality, they were no threat at all? We experienced one of your "successful" incidents here recently at a Whole Foods parking lot, where the gun owner waived a gun at someone over a contested parking space. He got the parking space, so I guess it was a "successful" use of a gun, right? Of course, the only person whose life was ever in any danger was the person being threatened by the gun owner. How many of your "successful" incidents fall into that category? Don't bother to answer, I know, there's no way for you to know any more than I do, and I don't dispute that some of those incidents do indeed involve a bona fide threat to the safety of the gun owner. But it's so subjective. The gun owner feels threatened, they have more pure adrenaline coursing through their veins than hemoglobin, their ability to accurately assess a situation is severely compromised. Yet, when the red haze fades from their vision, they're going to go home firmly convinced that their gun saved their life and who is going to challenge that interpretation? The moral of the story is that there's no way to reliably know how many of the incidents you describe as "successful" are, in fact, "successful." Again, to be sure, some undoubtedly are. But is it 75%? 50%? 25%? Less? With no way of knowing, I don't know how much weight to give to your claim of "successful" uses.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The bizarre idea that the only way to successfully use a firearm in self-defense is to fatally shoot someone.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Where have you been? I would have expected your reply ages ago or not at all. In response, I would ask a question. I will cheerfully concede that fatal shootings are not the only measure of so called successful uses of a firearm; they are but one indicator of how many incidents are found to be lawful. My question, though, is what makes you believe that non-fatal uses of firearms are significantly different? What the percentage of fatal shootings found to to be lawful demonstrates is that only 1 tenth of 1% of the time that someone used a gun and somebody died, it constituted a lawful use of deadly force. Granted, I have no figures on the percentage of instances where someone uses a gun and it doesn't result in a death that are ultimately found to be lawful uses of deadly force. But what reason do we have to assume that that percentage - whatever it is - would be substantially different? Wouldn't it stand to reason that, if such numbers were available, we would see more or less the same trend, i.e., only a tiny fraction of those cases being considered lawful interventions?
We get into a murky area here with regard to statistics in that, when someone kills someone with a gun, there is at least an investigation and the opportunity for the law to make an impartial determination on whether or not the use of force was appropriate. I think one of the reasons that statistics on nonlethal use of guns are harder to come by is that many will go unreported and, even when they are reported, they may go uninvestigated, because nobody got hurt. In the absence of any outside investigation, how is one ever to know whether those uses of a gun were, in fact, necessary? E.g., you see someone whom you perceive to be menacing approach you on the street, you flash your gun, he goes away. Was that an appropriate and necessary use of your firearm, or was the guy just looking for a light? You'll never know for sure, but that won't stop you from going and telling everyone that your gun just saved your life from someone you mistakenly perceived to be a threat. It's consequently hard for me to imagine how nonfatal instances of self-defense could not be be riddled with one-sided, subjective, anecdotal accounts that would render any overall statistic virtually worthless. So we come back to my original statistic of 300-400 lawful interventions out of 30,000 occurrences where the gun use resulted in a fatality and was investigated. It may not be a perfect reflection of what the results of investigation might be in nonfatal gun uses, but I perceive no reason to anticipate that it would be radically different. Do you? Why?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...I think one of the reasons that statistics on nonlethal use of guns are harder to come by is that many will go unreported and, even when they are reported, they may go uninvestigated, because nobody got hurt. In the absence of any outside investigation, how is one ever to know whether those uses of a gun were, in fact, necessary?
I have accepted the fact that those numbers are unknown and probably unknowable. I trust MOST people to behave responsibly.
...So we come back to my original statistic of 300-400 lawful interventions out of 30,000 occurrences where the gun use resulted in a fatality and was investigated. It may not be a perfect reflection of what the results of investigation might be in nonfatal gun uses, but I perceive no reason to anticipate that it would be radically different. Do you? Why?
I don't believe that body count in any way serves as a valid proxy measure of non-lethal DGUs because the intensity of the situations and the outcomes are so radically different. Because most adults do understand the severe consequences that are likely to occur if they shoot someone or even shoot at someone, I believe gun owners (and I know this about myself with certainty) are very hesitant to shoot. I own a house that I intend to keep for the rest of my life, I have responsibilities for animals and even a few people, and I really, really don't want to go to prison.
I think a small minority of our members here who are strongly opposed to people carrying weapons for self-defense have a mistaken idea that anyone who carries a gun is itching to shoot someone with it. The truth is that a desire to shoot someone is one of the best possible reasons NOT to carry a gun, or even to own one.
Sorry I haven't been able to address the nuances of all of your thoughtful questions here. Let's keep a dialogue open and maybe we can teach each other a few things.
primavera
(5,191 posts)"I don't believe that body count in any way serves as a valid proxy measure of non-lethal DGUs because the intensity of the situations and the outcomes are so radically different."
Good point. I confess, I hadn't thought about it like that, but what you say makes a lot of sense. I'll have to think about that one. Thanks for taking the time from your busy day to respond!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Visit the gungeon and you will discover that the gun culture will vote for anyone who pledges to make guns more plentiful. Huge fan clubs for all of the right-wing governors and legislators meet there
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Is that what grows on your firearms when you don't clean them regularly?
Go to Michigan, meet the union, democrat, blue collar pro-gun folks. Lots of steel workers in Pennsylvania as well. Coal miners in West Virginia..........
When you piss on 2A folks, you're pissing on union brothers and sisters from the 99% ranks.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)but up here, only 38% of the population votes for these idiots.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)"April 25, 2002
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 24— A man who shot to death seven co-workers at a software company was convicted of murder today after failing to convince a jury that he was so delusional he thought he was killing Hitler and his henchmen to prevent the Holocaust.
The defendant, Michael McDermott, 43, stood impassively as he heard the verdict in a courtroom full of relatives of the victims. The convictions on seven counts of first-degree murder mean Mr. McDermott will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Massachusetts does not have a death penalty.
The jury deliberated for nearly 16 hours over three days.
Prosecutors said Mr. McDermott went on his rampage because he was angry about the company's plan to comply with an order by the Internal Revenue Service to withhold a large part of his salary to pay back taxes. They said he concocted the Holocaust story after studying how to fake mental illness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/us/man-convicted-of-killing-7-co-workers.html?ref=michaelmcdermott
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)shoot up their work place.
I'm sure there's been a few people you wanted to shoot, but I doubt you live in Massachusetts, nor do you value rational argument, you prefer irrational points like
"And MA's laws against guns in cars impeded him not a whit. So what's your point?"
A point is: now wait for it, only ONE stupid person like you got away with it.
Move to Mass, bring your gun to work, see how you spend the next 30-50 years of your life.
You are actually trying to apply logic to this ? Amazing......... come to work with your gun in Mass, I hope you do.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)No wonder your side is losing. I won't alert on that as I'd rather that post stay there so everyone can see what passes for "gun control advocacy" these days .
Besides, I've been called worse by better...
Anyway, I'm curious: Why, exactly, do you think "persons like me" might shoot up their workplace? Be specific-and, BTW, I do live in Massachusetts.
Have for 20+ years. Can we assume the rest of your posts are of similar accuracy?
I'll ask the question again. Try and come up with an answer that doesn't violate half a dozen TOSes (as well as the rules of civil discourse).
If MA laws against bringing guns to work didn't stop a spree killer like McDermott, what now is stopping someone from doing it in Maine?
Laws against illegal gun posession in MA are a sick joke upon the law-abiding. I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone actually doing
the statutory five years for being a felon in possesion, or using a firearm in commission of a felony. Usually the charges get negotiated down (along
with the jail time)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
dash_bannon
(108 posts)One day, some disgruntled worker is going to make these lawmakers regret passing this bill.
Skwid
(86 posts)Formulating policy on "what-ifs" is pretty stupid.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You could do a whole lot more for society without your gun.
Skwid
(86 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skwid
(86 posts)You must not know many cops. I know a LOT of them and about half I wouldn't trust any further than I can dropkick the Statue of Liberty. I'll take an educated professional private citizen with a carry permit over a $20K a year barely-vetted rookie cop (who probably got about an hour of gun training at the academy) any day of the week.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)you describe. Well, he did until his wife died and he fell off the roof. He was a good -- but though -- policeman who when he was frail told some goof in a family restaurant wearing dual shoulder-holsters they were a "silly fool."
The folks I've known who tote started doing it during and in the aftermath of the Civil Rights era (and, no, I do not consider the poor, pitiful gun plight a "civil rights" struggle as do some who promote guns here). They were rednecks with -- as Mike Tyson said -- "bad intentions." The fact is, most people didn't need to pack then, and most don't now.
I think society is better without folks like that packing guns, and worse, carrying guns in public.
And let's not forget the majority of gun owners -- particularly public carriers -- are right wing. That's just a fact.
Bout time for someone to say "we should open the floodgates to more guns to attract right wingers to the Democratic Party." I hope we don't do that.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)
Post removed
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)But the odds are against it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
high density
(13,397 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)so they pander to the crazy right-wing fringe and then brag on TV about it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)Sure, AZ is the recent poster child for insanely stupid "law", but that's not because people decided to hate on Arizona.
It's because of laws to hate on being an immigrant, laws to hate on being hispanic, and laws to hate on not being "english" enough.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)While the AZ economy has been in a death spiral in the 18 years since the "Contract On America", your legislature's major accomplishment is allowing professors to pack heat in class. Their second biggest accomplishment is appearing on every TV and radio station in the statement crowing about how now professors can pack heat in class. Their third biggest accomplishment is...I forget.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)at least get your fucking data correct.
"...your legislature's major accomplishment is allowing professors to pack heat in class."
Not passed yet. Making this:
"Their second biggest accomplishment is appearing on every TV and radio station in the statement crowing about how now professors can pack heat in class."
...an utter fabrication.
P.S. It's not even my state, I'm merely a guest here, courtesy of the USAF. So, how does it feel to be wrong on all your assumptions?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Unless I am wrong about this too, Jan Brewer was elected governor fair-and-square, and Sheriff Joe has been in office for decades. Am I allowed to infer from these two facts that AZ as a state approves of them? And if that one's a "yes", can I carry on to infer that the AZ electorate is misguided in their priorities?
As for the issues at hand, these are facts:
1. The AZ economy has been in free fall ever since Gingrinch became speaker (when the Limbeciles swept into office coast-to-coast)
2. If I google "arizona guns on campus" I get 5.5 million hits. Has this issue been more of a priority for the legislature than the state's economy?
I will retract my hyperbole, if you will admit that my point is accurate.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"Brewer sought a full term as Governor of Arizona in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election, and was elected on November 3, 2010, winning with 55% of the vote over Democrat Terry Goddard's 42%."
So yeah, you're still slandering a lot of people.
As far as the economy goes, government can not "create jobs". Government can create conditions or incentives for job creation. That's it. They've arguably failed to do so properly here, but that's a seperate topic entirely irrelevent to the actual subject of discussion of this thread.
Arizona's lege is far from unique in much of their frivolousness, but I would not catagorize an attempt to restore a portion of a Constitutional Right as wasted time. More pointedly, I would question why anyone would object to such restoration with no proof that it causes more harm than the restriction and no proof that the restriction works as claimed.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)While the economy has remained in the toilet, the legislature and Brewer have distracted the citizens, including you, with this stupid fight for more guns. Congrats, you have revealed yourself as an NRA stooge. I would question why anyone would consider more guns a "victory" while the entire state infrastructure crumbles.
Indeed the point of this subthread is that any number of states are turning into the right-wing hell hole that is AZ. The people who are supposed to be improving the state (government) are deliberately torpedoing the economy, the social safety nets, the schools, and so on, but getting votes because they appeal to the gun nuts by declaring that it would be good for professors to wear side arms in the class room. And said gun nuts lap up Fox "News", hate radio, and NRA propaganda and regurgitate it just as if it were the truth.
Finally, Brewer's 55-42 win is a landslide by any measure. And I am allowed to infer that a state who elects a corrupt, lying, sociopath in a landslide is thoroughly misguided in its priorities.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Nice try at distraction and dodging, yourself.
You have completely failed to address the primary topic of the thread.
Well played.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Tripod
(854 posts)zanana1
(6,102 posts)You know I'm kidding, right?
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)
now I win
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
primavera
(5,191 posts)Unfortunately, civil, rational discussion is a rarity on such threads.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)because I'm not in the mood to give myself a head-ache. Just reading the titles in blue was almost enough though.
I'm surprised that a law would even be needed for this - I would have assumed it was legal already. I mean, if someone has a permit and has a gun in a locked case, there are laws about where they can and can't park their cars? News to me. It sounds like a good law - what would the point have been of prosecuting someone for this before it was made legal?
(to give some perspective on the looniness, I don't own a gun and never will. In fact, I'd love it if they just didn't exist, but I live in the real world, not a crazy world where I think people should have rights they've already been granted taken away from them to satisfy my own wanton desires.)
primavera
(5,191 posts)At least to me. The passion demonstrated in these threads bespeaks such a visceral divide between people who, in many respects, share a lot of the same values. Yet one person's freedom is another person's anarchy; conversely, one person's peaceful coexistence is another person's suppression of individual liberties. I can think of few issues that highlight so dramatically the schism between the libertarian and social democracy camps within the Democratic Party.
In a way, these threads are harder even than discussions with religious zealots: with zealots, one understands that their positions are influenced by faith teachings that are not required to be rational. One can, to some degree, feel a measure of pity for zealots who have been brainwashed into believing their gibberish. In the secular realm of guns, though, individuals have arrived at their respective points of view based upon their own personal experiences and logic (or lack thereof); it therefore feels more personal and less a reflection of cultural institutions.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Nothing like a rapier thrust through the sternum to let people know who's boss.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's perfectly legal except where prohibited by a local ordinance.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)Working security in a large casino in Vegas, they took our gun's away, can't carry for the last four years or so. Lot's of gang's and crazy people too. Only a few units, like outdoor, bikes, can still carry. Also, not allowed to bring gun's on property. Some fired for this.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)how bizarre...
BadGimp
(4,012 posts)Eom
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
But seriously, the real issue here is whether an employer has any legal say over what an employee keeps in his or her car in the company parking lot.
I think most of us would agree that an employer can prohibit a worker from bringing sexually explicit printed matter into the office. But most of us would also agree that the employer can't prohibit that worker from keeping the same material locked in his or her car and out of sight.
I view an employee's right to keep a gun safely stored out of sight in his or her car as the same as the right to keep a copy of Penthouse in the car out of sight.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)school? After all - guns don't kill people......
jpak
(41,756 posts)yup