Gun zealots put Floridians at risk

[keithm]

The problem that needs to be resolved is Employers who try to make citizens surrender civil rights as a condition of employment,

Amen.  Though, I still believe in the right to control what happens on my property.  For example, I believe in the right to ask people on my property to refrain from the distasteful use of the 1st amendment.  I don't want Phelps and his ilk protesting from my property, for example. Is that morally wrong of me?  Perhaps.  After all, Phelps first amendment rights are guaranteed.  Is it likewise morally wrong of a property owner to ask an employee or patron to refrain from the exercise of their second amendment rights?  Probably.  But if the law can prohibit one, can it not prohibit the other? 

[tombogan03884]

Amen.  Though, I still believe in the right to control what happens on my property.  For example, I believe in the right to ask people on my property to refrain from the distasteful use of the 1st amendment.  I don't want Phelps and his ilk protesting from my property, for example. Is that morally wrong of me?  Perhaps.  After all, Phelps first amendment rights are guaranteed.  Is it likewise morally wrong of a property owner to ask an employee or patron to refrain from the exercise of their second amendment rights?  Probably.  But if the law can prohibit one, can it not prohibit the other? 

Phelps would be on your property by HIS choice, and presumably without your invitation. We are on our employers property because  we were INVITED to work there. (BTW Phelps on my property would be beaten, By rejecting the wars that gained them he rejects the rights granted by the Constitution, and therefore is fair game )

[brosometal]

I found a lot of the comments here interesting. One thing that I've heard debated after the Utah mall shooting in a "gun free zone" was the property owner's liability for lack of security. If the employer wished to deny a gun owner the right to carry on the employer's property, the employer would then be responisble for the employee's well being.  That well being would have to extend past the employer's property to the commute to and from work. When approached from this viewpoint, few employers would be willing to take up that much responsibility and the car gun ban would seem a lot less of an option.  The private property argument has two edges: Yes, you have the right to do as you wish (with the above exceptions duely noted) with and on your property, however you have the liabiity also.

[keithm]

I fully believe in the liability aspect for those who choose to strip 2nd amendment rights from employees and patrons.  I want to see lawsuits pouring out of these shootings where victims were rendered defenseless.  Unfortunately, we're dealing with 50 years of socialist brainwashing telling the ... "people" ... that the tools used in the attacks are to blame.  And that's likely where the plaintiff's attorneys will focus.  Because those same brainwashed people sit in jury boxes.

[brosometal]

I fully believe in the liability aspect for those who choose to strip 2nd amendment rights from employees and patrons.  I want to see lawsuits pouring out of these shootings where victims were rendered defenseless.  Unfortunately, we're dealing with 50 years of socialist brainwashing telling the ... "people" ... that the tools used in the attacks are to blame.  And that's likely where the plaintiff's attorneys will focus.  Because those same brainwashed people sit in jury boxes.

Yes, a flood of lawsuits would  be great.  The more times a company, government body etc. had to defend themselves in court, the more chance of reality striking even with jury boxes of the brainwashed. Even a win would cost them. So the more the better. Hit the pocketbook.

[Sponsor]