IN: House Votes 76-21 To Allow Guns In Locked Car At Work

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100127/NEWS07/301279974/1002/LOCAL

Gun bills advance to Senate with ease
One closes database; 2nd allows firearms in cars at workplace
Niki KellyThe Journal Gazette

(FIRST BILL)
House Bill 1068 passed by a vote of 85-11 and would close public access to the state database of Hoosiers who have permits to carry a handgun in public.

More on that bill at link

BIG SNIP

(SECOND BILL)
The second piece of legislation – House Bill 1065 – would allow employees to have guns in their locked vehicles at work.

Many companies have policies against bringing firearms onto their property.

It passed 76-21 with supporters saying employees should have the right to have handguns in their cars for protection to and from work and opponents arguing it violates personal property rights.

SNIP

Both bills will advance to the Senate, where similar legislation has already passed or is pending.

Both bills are expected to pass.

[rrneck]

1. Good. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Good News!

[msongs]

3. cloak of secrecy descends over the gun crowd - so much for public awareness lol nt

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

30. None of your damn business. nt

[krispos42]

35. What's your driver's license number?

Please include current address and points on your licence, as well as a brief explanation of those points.


kthxbai

[onehandle]

4. Woohoo! Now bosses will think twice before laying off workers.

Wanna keep your job? Keep an arsenal in your car and make sure everyone knows.

Genius!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. After all the current rules have stopped workplace shootings. Oh wait.

[onehandle]

7. Who said anything about workplace shootings?

I am shocked... Shocked! That anyone would automatically go there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. I'm shocked that the rules against workplace shootings haven't worked.

[ManiacJoe]

34. You said it in post #4.

[onehandle]

51. No I didn't.

The other poster brought it up.

[proteus_lives]

9. What a stupid post.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

32. .

[Euromutt]

37. Let's look at the wider principle at stake here

How far-reaching do you think the power employers have over their employees should be? If an employer prohibited employees from having objectionable (to the employer) political materials in or on their car while it was parked in the company parking lot, would that be okay with you?

Let's specify it a bit further: do you think an employer would be within his or her rights to prohibit employees from having pro-choice bumper stickers on their personal vehicles in the company parking lot? From an anti-choice perspective, abortion kills human beings, so the principle is much the same.

How do you feel about employers requiring their employees to attend morning prayer meetings at the start of the working day? Hey, it's the employer's property, so on the property, the employer can impose whatever he wants provided it doesn't violate criminal law, right?

Or does your support for corporate America's violation of its employees' civil liberties only extend to the right to keep and bear arms?

[rrneck]

38. It's wider than that

Somebody owns the real estate under your car. If it's not in your own yard, somebody else owns it. Giving employers the right to decide what you can haul in your car sets an bad precedent.

[Euromutt]

54. That's a very good point, actually

And one I admit I hadn't thought of.

[rrneck]

55. Thanks. It's hard to get ahead of you. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

74. You know there was a case

where a state passed a CCL law and a very anti city government put up city ordnances that did just that. They passed city ordnances that said you could not carry on ANY city owned property. Many thought it applied to things like city hall and city buses but no, it applied to city streets, sidewalks, etc. The state slapped them down real fast on it though. Wish I could remember where that happened. . .

[rrneck]

76. It gets pretty complicated.

What do we do in light of the privatization of government services? I seem to recall private toll roads in the news a while back. And I can't recall the name (and I'm too lazy to Google it before coffee) but at one point W had a bunch of CEO's "deputized" as federal agents because their corporations were important to national (and Republican) security. What if you work for one of them?

It has more to do with control of people's lives than with what you actually have in your car. If they control the contents of your car in their parking lot, they control the contents of your car in route to and from that lot. If you have to make scheduling and routing adjustments to accommodate their preferences, they gain control of another slice of your life. And they don't have to be responsible for it, much less pay you. It's another example of the rich pushing responsibility for risk down the economic ladder to their benefit.

Of course castle doctrine laws assert that your car is basically an extension of your house and you have a right to defend yourself in your car just like you have a right to defend yourself in your house. So the boundary of your home has been extended to include the real estate that your car is sitting on. Do the rights of one's home trump the rights of some corporate entity? I think they should.

Funny how the self defense debate quickly becomes about more than just a gun. It's about the right of individuals to determine what's best for them and assume responsibility for that decision, whether they are being attacked or just making a living.

[oneshooter]

81. I believe that may have been Seattle Wa. n/t

[More_liberal_than_mo]

6. My daughter attends college

in downtown Atlanta, Georgia and has a concealed weapons permit. Currently GA law allows her to keep it in the car but a new law being debated in the GA legislature is session would allow her to carry it to class. I'm all for this. Should a deranged student open fire in her classroom I want her to be able to defend herself, and several students in the past few months have been assaulted on campus walking to and from classes. This bill is a result of the Virgina Tech campus shootings.

[onehandle]

8. Exactly.

And anyone carrying a gun is automatically Dirty Harry.

It's like they say, 'An armed society is a society of Dirty Harrys.'

[PavePusher]

16. "And anyone carrying a gun is automatically Dirty Harry."

Really?

Please cite to where anyone is claiming this.

[onehandle]

22. It's in the Second Amendment. Duh.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, thus automatically being as Dirty Harry, shall not be infringed.'

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

43. Oh, so you're just here to fling poop.

My apologies, I had you confused with an adult. Good day.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

59. Naw. I mean, who carries around a .44 mag for self-defense?

Besides, they couldn't be "automatically" Dirty Harry because his gun was a revolver.

Who is this mysterious "they?"

[HelenWheels]

10. Disgusting

This is another example of how frightened our citizens are becoming. Oh goody, a shootout in the classroom. Locked cars would be a another target for bad guys to get their hands on guns. It seems the only answer is for every man, woman and child to carry a loaded gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Your solution of taking away freedoms is much more disgusting.

[PavePusher]

17. And while gun ownership has gone up...

Crime has gone down.

So, it seems we are safer with more guns...



"It seems the only answer is for every man, woman and child to carry a loaded gun."

Really? Please cite to where anyone has claimed this.

[More_liberal_than_mo]

18. I am not a NRA nut

and I totally disagree with many, if not most of their positions. That said I am a gun toting liberal and believe in the right of our citizens to defend themselves against criminals and especially against right wing nut gun toting NRA members. I taught my daughter to shoot when she was 15. She is a bright responsible young woman who one day may have to defend herself against some armed criminal on the streets of Atlanta intent on causing her great bodily harm. I don't want her to be a victim.

[PavePusher]

21. Please, don't use such a broad brush.

There are few "nuts" in the NRA.

[More_liberal_than_mo]

23. I didn't say all NRA

members are right wing nuts. I meant some NRA members are right wing nuts. I generally disagree with their political stance and their upper level management is definely on the right wing side of politics. I was a member for a while, but got tired of their constant barrage of right wing garbage. They spammed me and called me asking for funds to "stop Obama from taking our guns away". That was the last straw and I now have let my membership expire and blocked their telephone calls.

edited for spelling

[SteveM]

61. Being a "right wing nut gun toting NRA member" is not a reason to use self-defense...

Those who "qualify" can engage in all the nuttery they won't, but if they don't pose an immediate life-threatening danger, no one needs to defend themselves.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

40. The only thing that's disgusting here...

...is your ignorance of the situation at hand.

[rd_kent]

57. This perfectly describes you. "In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage"

"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"

[SteveM]

60. Hmm. I've seen criminals with guns shoot defenseless students...

but I have yet to see a "shootout in the classroom." Can you provide us with some examples, comparing said to the number of classes (given a specific definition of schools/classrooms) held in a specific time-frame so that we might gauge the relative frequency of this occurrence?

The locked car concern is a valid one, but can be ameliorated by better storage procedures. The answer is NOT for "...every man, woman and child to carry a loaded gun." Children may be restricted from such based on state laws, and convicted felons (men or women) would be legally barred from owning firearms. The same for those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

[paulsby]

67. "fear canard"

how original

[wjbarricklow]

70. If there's already a shootout in the classroom?

"Oh goody, a shootout in the classroom."

If there;s already a shootout in the classroom, what harm is one more gun going to do?

"Locked cars would be a another target for bad guys to get their hands on guns."

I agree 100%. If a student brings a handgun on campus, he/she should carry it on his/her person.

[aikoaiko]

75. HB 615 is very important for GA residents.

As I understand it, HB 615 limited the number of officially restricted places to courtrooms, jails, and prisons.

It's gone through one committee hearing and one subcommittee hearing without changes so far.

I am hopeful on this one.

[katandmoon]

11. Gun worshippers truly will not be satisfied until everyone is required to buy a gun and be armed at

all times. Stupid, violent, brainwashed by NRA fuckers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Too bad there are no gun worshippers. Otherwise your argument would make sense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Silly F_M_Dave, of *course* there are gun worshippers!

They live in her neighbor's microwave oven and read her thoughts.

[PavePusher]

19. Your self-fornication...

doesn't do your cause any favors.


"will not be satisfied until everyone is required to buy a gun and be armed at all times"

Really? Please cite to where anyone claims to want this.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

31. No way should you have one. nt

[slackmaster]

44. You're almost half right

Only people who really want to be armed should be armed, and nobody should ever be required to do anything.

[spin]

52. Not all people should own firearms ...

1) If you suffer from anger management problems, than guns are NOT for you.

2) If you abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from a serious mental illness, than guns are not for you.

3) If you live in a volatile relationship with a significant other, than guns are not for you.

4) If you are not willing to make the effort to learn gun safety, than guns are not for you.

5) If you are thinking about buying a firearm for self defense but are unwilling to learn how to be proficient with your weapon, than guns for self defense are not for you.

6) If you are thinking about buying a firearm for self defense but can't reply "Yes" to the following question, than guns for self defense are not for you.

If necessary I am willing to shoot another person to stop an attack that may severely injure or kill me or another person, even if it means that I might kill the attacker.

7) If you oppose the ownership of firearms, than guns are not for you.

The overwhelming majority of NRA members would agree with the above statements.

We definitely don't want everyone to be "required to buy a gun". We believe that responsible, honest citizens should be able to buy a firearm if they chose to.

Your comment "Stupid, violent, brainwashed by NRA fuckers" is at the very best asinine and insulting to NRA members who use their firearms in a responsible manner for target shooting, hunting or legitimate self defense. You paint with a very broad brush. Stereotyping is never a sign of intelligence.

But still, I support your right to make incredible stupid statements. You may have good reasons to hate guns. The misuse of firearms often result in tragedy. If such an incident occurred in your lifetime, I want to express my sympathy.

[rd_kent]

58. This quote reminds me of you......

"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"

[Tim01]

65. I'll bet you run away after just one post. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

15. The IN Senate voted 41-9 FOR the guns-in-cars-at-work bill, N/T

[PavePusher]

20. Talk about Rock-the-Vote....!!! n/t

[benEzra]

36. Preserving the status quo.

Employees have always been able to have lawfully owned firearms secured in their cars in public-access lots at work in most states, UNTIL the gun-control lobby started quietly encouraging employers to ban the practice and institute random vehicle searches. The catalyst for these new employee-protection laws was when Weyerhauser sent sniffer dogs through their public-access parking lot ON THE FIRST DAY OF HUNTING SEASON and summarily fired any employee who either refused consent for a search, or had a lawfully possessed firearm in the vehicle.

These laws preserve the status quo; the parking lot is the corporation's property, but the interior of one's vehicle is not.

[plantwomyn]

41. Yet the corporation can restrict

enterence and egress. My Auntie is working part time at walgreens and they closed off the parking lot and required everyone to pop their trunk and looked into the interior of their cars. I told my Auntie that I felt that was an illegal search. But you see if you want to keep your job you have to allow the search.

[SteveM]

62. I think more recent laws prevent corporations from doing this. nt

[benEzra]

64. And the state legislature has the authority to prohibit such baseless searches

and this is what they have, in fact, done.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Property owners should not be required to allow firearms on their premises.

Those parking lots are owned by individuals or corporations, and such entities have the right to determine use of that property.

I'm as pro-gun-rights as they get, but this is a bad law. No one has the right to tell me what I may or may not allow on my property.

[rd_kent]

42. They are not on YOUR property, they are IN the private property of the car owner.

I know, its all semantics, but those same semantics are important. I understand what your point is, but how would you know what was in each individuals car? Are you able to search it? What if you did and found not a gun, but some other item you, personally, did not approve of?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You aren't aware.

Just like you aren't aware of someone with a CPL carries a gun on your property against your consent. But what this does is, it robs the property owner of the ability to press charges for trespassing if the weapon becomes known.

That can happen multiple ways with a vehicle, such as the car getting broken into by some scum, and the weapon is either stolen (and on the police report) or left visible. Taking a don't ask/don't tell approach to storing a firearm on someone's property against their wishes should carry risk. This law removes that risk. Wrongly.

[rd_kent]

47. I guess it boils to to what is most important: The right to exercise 2A rights and personal security

and the right of the property owner to determine what is allowed on private property.

IMO, I think the right decision was made, as 2A rights are important, but also for reasons outlined in my previous post....that the gun is on private property of the gun owner. The CAR is on the private property of the business owner.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. But the owner of the car is there willingly, and probably, in the case of an empoyee situation

with full knowledge that firearms are forbidden by the employer.

The appropriate recourse is to leave the firearm home, or find an employer that doesn't have a problem with a firearm locked in a car on their property.

[rd_kent]

50. I do see your point, and it is valid

but I guess the point is moot now, as the law has been passed.

[spin]

53. So you are the employer ...

One of your best employees lives in a bad neighborhood. As he leaves his/her house to go to your workplace, he/she is attacked and seriously injured or killed. Perhaps on his/her way to or from work he/she suffers from a road rage incident or a "bump and rob".

How do you feel when you walk into the hospital room or the funeral home and face his relatives?

Do you say, "He/she was a really great employee and proved it by following my rules not to have a gun in his car at work. It's a shame that he/she didn't have a gun for self defense, but that's my rules. Shit happens."

I wouldn't work for you. You trust me enough to work for you but not enough to have a firearm in MY car in your parking lot. You feel your property rights are far more important than my rights for self defense.

In the current economic environment, if you came out with such a policy while I was working for you, I would simply ignore it. If you decided to search my vehicle, I would demand that you contact the police. When the officer arrived I would insist that he get a search warrant that stated he was searching my vehicle for a legal item.

And if I did follow your policy and not have a firearm for self defense in my car when I was involved in a situation where it might have saved me from severe injury, I would sue you. If I ended up six feet under, I would have instructed my survivors to sue you.

This situation actually happened in the company I worked for. I expressed my opposition to the company policy in no uncertain terms. They stood firm. I ignored their rules and continued to have a firearm in my car. While they were well aware of that fact, they decided to use a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. They never tried to search my car or the cars in the parking lot.

I reached an age where I could retire. The "no guns in the company policy" was a factor in my decision. I had reached the point that I was totally fed up with the management. They didn't trust me and consequently I didn't trust them.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. That is a valid recourse.

IF and when I leave my current employment, I intend to shop around for an employer that is more agreeable to my desire to exercise my CPL.

But my current employer does not allow it, and I think it dishonorable to knowingly violate such policy.

You would have no grounds to sue in your hypothetical scenario either.

[PavePusher]

91. Has your employer made arrangements to ensure your security?

It seems to me that if they wish to restrict your ability to defend yourself, they must consequently accept the burden themselves. Be interesting to see this in court, especially as they have already established case law that the police have no obligation to defend the citizenry.

[paulsby]

68. the main issue is this...

the employer's restriction places a significant burden on the employee OUTSIDE the workplace.

if you can't have a gun in your car, the employer has effectively disarmed you to and from work.

that is why, even though i generally support broad employer rights, in this case, i think the employer having the right to ban guns from cars in the lot, has too broad an effect OFF "campus" so to speak.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Store the vehicle off-site.

I have done so, when planning to go to the range after work. In fact, I have paid for the space to do so.

[PavePusher]

92. Shouldn't have to. See my post above. n/t

[rrneck]

46. Cars move.

Somebody owns the property under your car. If it's not in your yard, somebody else owns it. Allowing the owner of the property under the car to determine its contents sets a bad precedent.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Public property is fine.

Also, property where the owner doesn't care or have a policy against firearms.

Private property owners have the right, just like they have the right to forbid you having a gun on your person.

[benEzra]

56. A corporation is not a person.

A corporation is an entity created by the state to limit individual liability and whatnot.

Since a corporation is chartered by the state and is NOT a person, the state can set limits on its power to infringe the inalienable rights of persons, IMO. You can kick a person out of your yard because you don't like their political views, their religion, or even their ethnicity (as reprehensible as that may is), but a corporation may NOT do those things.

Saying a corporation cannot wield right-of-possession over the interior of private property parked in an open-to-the-public lot owned by the corporation is not the same as saying you can't set ridiculous and immoral conditions for who can park in your personal driveway. Two different things.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Great response! N/T

[wjbarricklow]

71. might be a little too far

Easy there. If you follow that line of reasoning, the NRA has no right to lobby on our behalf.

[benEzra]

79. Well, the NRA can't, really. The NRA-ILA can, as a PAC, not a mere corporation.

The NRA *can* publish information and criticism about candidates on the same basis that the New York Times can, though. Freedom of the press has always applied to more than individuals, as muzzling collective speech muzzles individuals, particularly with regard to grassroots political activism.

I'm not saying that corporations can't exercise various rights, merely that when the rights of corporations and the rights of individuals come into direct conflict, the state is within its purview to rule corporate violations of those rights out of bounds.

[Euromutt]

90. A corporation is not a *natural* person

My apologies if I seem a little pedantic, but while a corporation is not a natural person, it is a legal person, in the sense that it can be taxed, fined, sued, etc. All natural persons are also legal persons, but not all legal persons are natural persons.

Apart from that, you're entirely correct that a non-natural legal person cannot be accorded all the rights that a natural person is.

[pipoman]

72. I have read your posts on this and partially agree

my state passed a very similar law. It is part of employment law. Every employer must have a state employer ID number which is used to report taxes and requires the employer to abide by state employment laws, min. wage, overtime, etc. and now this. The same argument being made by you about this could be said about minimum wage, why shouldn't the employer be able to pay wages based on supply and demand? After all if the employee doesn't feel he is being duly compensated he can go somewhere else, no? There are many laws which infringe on employer free will, osha would be another example, Americans with disabilities another.

[rrneck]

73. The claim by an employer

to determine the contents of your car also extend to what is in the car off of company property. If someone needs to have a gun to drive through a bad neighborhood their employer is also claiming the right to disarm them in transit to and from work. If an individual has to make a few stops after work that would expose them to risk, the employer increases their risk without being responsible for it as well. Now, if the employee wants to, s/he can adjust their plans to compensate, but that is actually a greater injustice.

Most of the social and economic problems we have suffered in this country are the result of an increasingly small oligarchy of corporate interests pushing risk down the economic ladder. We don't have retirement plans any more, we have 401k's (and they tried to privatize those for the hedge fund casino). We don't have 40 hour weeks with overtime till retirement, we have temp work, contract work and at worst, people are kept "on call" for a thirty five hour a week job with no benefits. And speaking of benefits, need I enumerate the problems with employer sponsored health care? More and more employers are gaining more control of our lives away from work and not compensating us for it. The last thirty years have seen the injustice of "just in time manufacturing meets the service industry".

As far as I'm concerned I can have anything I want in my car and it's none of my employer's business. In fact, my employer owes me a place to park my car and security to see to it that it is not damaged. If I have to trust my vehicle to sit on their property, they need to be responsible for it and everything inside it. Because that's what it's really about. They want to reduce their responsibility to me every way they can, and this is just one more small instance of corporate risk management to cut costs at the expense of the employee.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Damn right! N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Your employer does not owe you a place to park.

Period.

And you'll see more of this in dense city locations. The company I work for has sites in Downtown Seattle, and it does not have parking for fully half of the people working in those sites. They are kind enough to provide as much parking as possible, and bike racks and bus passes for the rest of us, but no, they do not OWE you a parking spot.

If you want to keep something in your car that is against corporate policy, you may be prosecuted for trespassing, and you WILL be fired. At least at my company. It's that simple. The only thing protecting you, is the fact the weapon is hidden. This is not a moral defense, and that anonymity can be shattered by a thief, looking for XYZ in your car. Missing gun on the police report? Corporation is going to get a copy. Gun or gun case left in plane sight by the rummaging thief? Responding officer checking out your car finds the gun? All problems.

Edit; Apparently I have un-learned how to spell Thief.

[rrneck]

85. If they want me to work there

they owe me a place to park my car. That should be part of the labor negotiations. (Full disclosure - I'm self employed, so it's easy for me to have a lot of attitude about it.) If I have to show up, then they need to make it so I can park or move the facility to make that possible.

It simply isn't fair for a corporate entity to decide what you can or cannot have in your car by fiat and use the power of the state to enforce their wishes. It really has nothing to do with guns or the second amendment. It is about not assuming responsibility for their workers as a cost saving measure. They don't care about guns beyond the possibility of one of the workers they have treated like shit going out to the car to get the gun and shooting management. What they are really trying to avoid is the responsibility for the employees property, because the security would cost them money. A lot of it if they are in downtown Seattle. I bet the CEO can fly right to the roof in a helicopter.

They require you to make an adjustment in your life without compensating you for it. And the tradgedy is that people accept that. A corporation is not the government. They have no right to tell you what you can have in your car. Period.

on edit:

Of course if company parking is impossible, the point is moot.

[oneshooter]

86. Just to add a little to the discussion,

Texas and some other states conceder your vehicle as an extension of your home. To "inspect" your vehicle a search warrant must be issued by a Judge, to get this, reasonable cause must be given. Of course if you go through this then the Company can discharge you "for reason".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

87. So, if I understand,

just the fact that they had to get the warrant is grounds for dismissal?

[oneshooter]

88. Texas is a "right to work"state

Your employer can dismiss you for any reason, or for no reason. If you cause them too much trouble then you can be dismissed. By dismissing you "for reason" they are not required to pay unemployment. Simple really, if you cause no problems, you stay employed.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

89. Simple really, if you cause no problems, you stay employed.

Ain't it the truth! Obsequious acquiescence ensures employment. Therefore, in the corporations eyes, the best possible employees are productive slaves. Here's an interesting book:

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265048068&sr=8-2
An eye-opening look at the phenomenon of school and workplace shootings in America, Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has plagued — and baffled — America for the last three decades, and offers some provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s — when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings — the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.

[wjbarricklow]

69. property rights

Should they stop telling business owners to put in public restrooms? How about parking spaces or wheelchair rbamps? What about railings on stairs, or covers over electric panels? What about fire exits?

Should you be able to refuse service to blacks or women?

When you open your property to the public you make certain concessions.

[aikoaiko]

77. It's a good balance of two competing rights.

There are two property rights owners at play.

The way I see it, employers are inviting employees to park their vehicles on their properties and have no say as to the contents the car (as long as the contents don't violate any laws). This is true for political materials, union materials, religious books, self-defense items, etc. kept inside the vehicle.

[Hoopla Phil]

78. I agree with that. It is more of property rights vs. property rights. Not

property rights vs 2A rights.

If you allow for parking of employee cars then you have to allow any legal items that the owner of the car wants in them.

Someone once said something to the affect that one person's rights end where my nose begins. In this case the rights of one end at the threshold of the others car.

[Tim01]

66. I am not at all a fan of handguns in cars.

I much prefer the guns to be kept on the belt where it is not so easy for the to walk away. But I guess that's what car safes are for.