Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers
I copied this post from another forum. This guy hit the nail on the head when it comes to the 2nd amendment and those idiotic gun-buster signs.
Those of us who contend that the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves while we are at work or out conducting business are far from ignorant of the law. To the contrary, we are painfully aware of how the law has been used to deny us our right to defend ourselves in these places. And once again, we have witnessed yet another incident where people on the job were killed or wounded because they weren't allowed to defend themselves from one deranged co-worker (Police: Minn. office shooter kills 4, then self - Yahoo! News).
It has been argued that the Bill of Rights didn't cover everyone when it was first written. That is true. And because business people were more interested in protecting their income than protecting the rights of those who made that income possible, slavery was the law of the land until the civil war finally put an end to it. As one business owner posted to this forum, "For me the bottom line is more important than this topic. And that's how one becomes successful. Every single decision we make from morning to bedtime is based on the question "is this financially good for the company... and for me as the owner?" Another poster observed, "I'm in the money business. I'm not in the 'rights' business. Don't like it? Take your business or employment elsewhere. It's not negotiable." That is the attitude that kept slavery going for hundreds of years around the world in the past, and THAT is the attitude that makes the Minnesota, or Colorado, or V Tech shootings possible today. As the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, observed regarding active shooter incidents:
"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage"
But then something happened: the common people began to understand how their rights had been denied them. They began talking about how the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - ALL of them - should belong to everyone. And because people began to talk, action was initiated, and eventually laws - a seemingly insurmountable number of them - were changed. THAT is what is happening here in this and other forums. People are recognizing that the law needs to be changed. It isn't about ignorance of the law, it is about a recognition that a right that exists in our Bill of Rights is being denied us simply because the government hasn't gotten around to declaring us a "protected group." It is about a recognition that the "golden rule" still exists, and that those who have the gold (the chamber of commerce and other groups that buy politicians) are still making the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the rights of those who make it possible for them to be profitable - both employees and clients.
I have news for you, the Civil Rights Act was intended to do only one thing: assure that certain groups of people who had experienced discrimination - the denial of their Constitutional rights - no longer experienced that discrimination. That is all. It didn't set them apart for "special" treatment, although that is how it has been interpreted, and it didn't tell the rest of us to bug off, that OUR civil rights no longer meant anything compared to the rights of the few protected groups. It was created to insure that ALL the rights of ALL the people - without exception - were protected.
It begins with people talking about it - and then doing something to change it. It has happened before, despite the efforts of wealthy businessmen to stop it, and it can and must happen again. THAT is what scares the business owners on this forum the most. The notion that, for all of their barking about the power of the Chamber of Commerce and the pile of precedent on their side, they could actually lose the control they now maintain. There might actually come a time when they WON'T be able to tell their employees, "I don't care WHAT you believe about the Second Amendment; if you want to work for me, you'll abide by MY understanding of the Second Amendment. And if you choose not to, QUIT! There are 50 others waiting for your job." Because the reality is, most of these business owners WON'T close up their businesses if this ever happens. They have bills to pay and mortgages to maintain, and families to feed. They can say what they want to now, but at that time they will grumble a bit and then get on with business. In the meantime, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a business owner can prohibit those who enter his business from protecting themselves, and then when something terrible happens, as was the case in Minnesota this week, and people are injured or die, they can simply say, "Oh well, that's just the cost of doing business and protecting MY rights; screw the rest of you."
This is a sign in a bank window in Chapel Hill, TX.