Re: Anti-Gun Democrats DEFEATED, Again - Alabama “Worker Protection” Bill Successfully Passes the House!

On May 17, 8:03 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 15:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 15, 9:41 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 12, 8:31 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 9, 9:28 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 9, 7:01 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4844
Alabama: “Worker Protection” Bill Successfully Passes the House!
Friday, May 08, 2009
House Bill 362, sponsored by State Representative Craig Ford (D-28),
passed the House without any exemptions. The exemption for railroad
companies was successfully removed.
HB 362 would protect your right to lawfully transport and store
firearms in a privately-owned and locked motor vehicle while parked in
publicly accessible parking lots controlled by your employer or a
business you frequent.  HB362 now heads to the Senate for assignment.
Please contact your State Senator and respectfully urge them to vote
in favor of HB 362.  To contact your State Senator by phone, call
(334) 242- 7800.  For further contact information on your Alabama
State Legislators, click here.
This sounds a little dangerous.
"Freedom" doesn't sound dangerous to me except to those who would wish
to deprive others of theirs...
You can have any so-called "freedom" you want, but that won't make you
or anyone else safer.
Every single woman in America with the Freedom to own and carry a
handgun, who has exercised her responsibility to get trained and to
practice, IS SAFER than every other unarmed woman...
The fact is that any gun in the home leads to a higher incident of
death. You can't just consider the bearer of the weapon. If more
innocent people are killed by guns, that must be taken into
consideration.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-gun-lobby-s-myths
That was OPINION.  That was NOT Fact.
If you ONLY have Opinion that PRETENDS to be Fact then you have
NOTHING.
Read the study. It is not my opinion.

The "study" has been debunked many times.

Here's just ONE example:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less...

You bogus "study" merely indicates the more guns eguals more gun
incidents (positive or negative) is identical to saying that more cars
equals more car wrecks.  Duh....

Here are some interesting quotations from the Annenberg Q&A, which you
apparently didn't read very carefully.

"Some studies have found that murder rates (not crime rates in
general) are higher where guns are more prevalent."

"Studies that have looked at gun ownership and murder rates, he says,
have shown "yes, there’s a strong relationship." Such studies,
Hemenway says, have controlled for certain variables, comparing urban
areas to other urban areas or households in violent areas to other
households in violent areas. With those types of studies, "the
evidence is very compelling." There’s more gun murder in areas with
more guns, and more murder overall, he says."

"One of Hemenway's studies, published in 2004 and coauthored by Lisa
M. Hepburn, reviewed commonly cited research from peer-reviewed
journals. It found that studies of the United States or U.S. cities,
states and regions "generally find a statistically significant gun
prevalence-homicide association." The report said that the evidence
from such "U.S. cross-sectional studies is quite consistent ... where
there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are
substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates."
Hemenway's report also found that international studies "typically
show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and
women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
So where there are guns, there is likely a higher rate of murders
committed with guns in particular."

The Annenberg Q&A you posted is based primarily on the National
Academies Report, Firearms and Violence. Here is what they said
regarding right-to-carry laws, "The literature on right-to-carry laws
summarized in this chapter has obtained conflicting estimates of their
effects on crime. Estimation results have proven to be very sensitive
to the precise specification used and time period examined. The
initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show
evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The
estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in
the model specification and control variables. No link between right-
to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even
in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are
included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the
trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the
adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long
after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the
trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law
change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the
committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible
to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-
to-carry laws and crime rates."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=150

I did not actually post a study, I posted a fact-checked Q&A from
OpposingViews.com, and you might have left well enough alone, since it
is based on the latest data and agrees with the results of the 2004
master study by National Academies, examining all data from the gun
lobby, etc. Here's what it said, all based on facts, 'Contrary to the
gun lobby's propaganda, purchasing a gun for self-protection does not
lead to enhanced personal safety. In fact, having a gun in the home
increases the risk of domestic violence homicide, suicide and
unintentional injury. Consider the facts:

• Each time a gun is used in a legally-justifiable shooting in a
home, there are 22 unintentional, criminal, and suicide-related
shootings.

• Having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.

• Having a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the
home.

So, when posed with the question "Does Owning a Gun Make You Safer?",
the answer is easy. More guns equal more death and despair...plain
and simple.'

Freedom is just that, it's the ability to make
choices and act responsibly on your own. When I speak of danger here,
I mean bodily danger, such as when the IRA tries to pass laws that
make it difficult for employers to protect their employees. It's like
playing with fire.
You're talking from a Fantasy Perspective.  The protection of
employees has NEVER been the purview of employers.  Local, State, and
Federal Laws protect employees as they are OBEYED by employers. Local,
State, and Federal Law Enforcement protects The Law as per Supreme
Court decision.  There exists NO LAW IN AMERICA that assigns the
personal protection of employees to employers BEYOND what I described
above.
Well yes, the laws for personal and corporate responsibility, such as
workplace safety laws. They are the laws of America, too. Also the
body of jurisprudence that proves that employers are responsible for
providing a safe place of work.
Your OPINION will not pass here.  "Workplace safety laws" DO NOT
require ANY EMPLOYER in America to protect ANY employee ANYWHERE in
America from Civil Crime.
It's true that workplace safety laws are there to protect workers from
employer's negligence, and may not specifically force employers to
protect workers from civil crime. However, that's a mere technicality.
If employers provided a dangerous place to work, no matter what the
reason, that could violate an employee's right to work safely. I'm not
just inventing opinions, here. I'm just trying to persuade you with
logic.

When were you going to BEGIN using logic...?

No, its not a technicality.  Because law enforcement already has
jurisdiction over civil crime EVERYWHERE in America it becomes NOT
POSSIBLE for an employer to provide a dangerous workplace with regard
to civil crime IF the employer is ALREADY obeying existing law.

Generally speaking, I agree with you, but that does not exempt him
from civil liability. I don't have time to examine every state's
workplace safety laws, but it is quite conceivable that existing
workplace safety law exists which requires employers to be congnizant
of workers safety when they are entering or leaving work, for example.
Further along these lines, I checked out the NIOSH database and found
out that Firearms were the 3rd leading cause of death among farm
workers. Wow!
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-146/detail/keyworddetail.asp@xxxxxxxxxxx

The CDC has an alert out stating the dangers of firearms in the
workplace. Since the Secretary of Labor has broad powers to control
"recognized hazards" in the workplace, he could take direct action,
regardless of existing firearms law.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homicide.html

Additionally, (with the possible exception of contractually obligated
bodyguards) Law Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in America IS NOT OBLIGATED
to protect employees or people.  Law Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in
America IS ONLY OBLIGATED to protect and enforce the Law.
It's true that law violation usually triggers law enforcment action,
but Law Enforcement Agencies also are often generally protective and
are usually held responsible for preempting anti-social behavior, and
crowd control, among other examples. Workplace safety, like law
enforcement is a government concern and responsibility. Employers,
like individual home owners, can be held to be out of compliance with
the law.
Talk about opinions, you certainly have plenty of them.

No, that wasn't an opinion.  It was a statement of fact.  Law
Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in America IS NOT OBLIGATED to protect
employees or people.  Law Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in America IS
ONLY OBLIGATED to protect and enforce the Law.

Its just a fact.

"It's just a fact", has no value, when the "fact" is a lie. A general
description about what law enforcement does, in this case, is much
more valuable than your inaccurate technical reductionism.

"People depend on police officers and detectives to protect their
lives and property."
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm

"The primary duties of law enforcement officers are the protection of
life and property, the preservation of public peace, and the
prevention and detection of criminal offences. To fulfil these duties
law enforcement officers are granted extraordinary powers; citizens
therefore have the right to expect the highest standards of conduct
from them."
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Corruption/IGEC/Codes/Default.asp

The arguement that the "worker" is
protected, needs to be weighed against the need for the employer to
protect all of his "workers".
No.  The employer has no such "need" defined by law.  The employer has
various obligations and regulations and reguirements described by all
manner of local, state and Federal law HOWEVER the 'protection' YOU
are suggesting DOES NOT EXIST.  
The issue is: Does a Constitutional Right trump a Private Property
Right?
The Supreme Court has already defined, affirmed and reaffirmed the
individual's Constitutional Right (to keep and bear arms).
The Private Property Right is another matter.
What courts and legislatures have been determining is:
a. Exerting the Private Property Right in the form of "YOU may not
park here - because I said so" is legal.
b. Exerting the Private Property Right in the form of "You can park
here BUT I'll then violate your Constitute Right" is NOT legal.
A business owner is is already entitled to protect all of his property
and its contents, that means the employees too.
No. It DOES NOT include employees.  See above.  There is NO SUCH
entitlement defined by law ANYWHERE in America.
You WISHING it was doesn't make it happen...
It's not an entitlement, it's a responsibility.  Your ignorance of the
law doesn't help you out here; talk about living in a fantasy world!
I await your CITE...
No CITE = You're completely WRONG.
Citations aren't necessary. To me its only logical. (I'm saying you're
illogical, in case you don't get it.)

Citations ARE necessary AND required.  You are welcome to your
opinions HOWEVER when your opinion is FACTUALLY INCORRECT you are then
also welcome to never-ending public ridicule, embarrassment and
humiliation.

There is NO SUCH responsibility define by law in America, period.

Your WISHING it was doesn't make it happen...

Your OPINION doesn't make it happen...

Your attempt to disguise OPINION as "logic" doesn't make it happen...

Well, it turns out my logic was correct here. I will have to refer you
to my argument and citations above vis a vis the reponsibility of
employers to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards, the CDC
alert on gun violence in the workplace, plus the broad powers of the
Secretary of Labor for enforcement = Responsibility. Again, it's not
my opinion.

The right to keep
firearms is not the only right we enjoy. I don't see any positive
court outcome for your position here, since the argument for a safe
workplace and environment supports the owner's right to control his
property (parking lot - whatever).
The outcome (so far) has been a compromise.  
The "argument for a safe workplace and environment" FAILED in court
every time.
However, where exceptions have been granted they were granted based on
LARGER considerations.  Such as a flammable chemical distributor who
demonstrated a LARGER safety concern (to property, to more than one
employee), and a fireworks manufacturer who did the same.
This is why the outcomes (so far) has been a compromise.  
Your argument here rests on your idea of a reasonable judgement. But
the facts are many sided.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/workplace/
No, not really, not in the Courts anyway.
What do you mean, "not in the courts". Do you mean courts don't
consider many faceted facts? That doesn't sound particularly logical.

Since WHEN are lawsuits, Courts, lawyers, juries and the documented
law "logical?"

Lawyers do whatever they can to win and logic never crosses their
minds.

Courts and Judges are REQUIRED to administer Justice as it ALREADY is
defined by Law and logic never enters the equation.

Juries are REQUIRED and INSTRUCTED to administer Justice in their
decision-making as it ALREADY is defined by Law and logic never enters
the equation.

Logic is how we all think. Even juries are never instructed "not to
think", merely to CONSIDER the evidence as presented. Your rejection
of legal logic is pure myth. Lawyers, to win, must convince using
logical arguments. Laws are passed by legislators, who are normally
lawyers and others, who are trained in using logic. Logic is taught at
the paralegal level to help them understand what the judges and
lawyers are doing. You might consider taking a course, or reading a
book on it yourself!

Are the legislators glibbly accepting NRA money
Are you making an uncited, unreferenced, accusation OR were you
wanting this to be the first time today you made a fool of yourself in
public?
OK, the "fund to reelect bad politicians money" now comes from the IRA-
PVF because of McCain-Fiengold. What the hel!. The IRA is still a
great gun education club and a terrible lobby.
If they're such a "terrible lobby" then why did both Sen Reid and Rep
Pelosi say NO WAY are we gonna consider a new Assault Weapon Ban?
Because they thought it was "politic"? Am I supposed to be surprised
that they're "bought"? Opposing new Assault Weapons Ban, if that is
true, is not exactly the same as supporting the kind of legislation
currently being pushed by the NRA.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/forced-entry-report.pdf
Feel free to think the NRA is a "terrible lobby" while we continue to
win all across America and even at the Supreme Court, and you continue
to lose...
I don't think the NRA has done all that well. Most decisions and
legislation is 2-sided, since the right to keep and bear arms needs to
be cautiously balanced with public safety. Some of the NRA sponsered
legislation doesn't seem to recognize this need.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant.

The NRA has been winning.

YOU have been losing.

Its just a fact...

I haven't lost anything at all, I happen to live in California. The
NRA has only been able to post a few small successes in its regressive
state campaign, apparently mostly in poorer states. Reason and balance
will continue to prevail in regards to the second amendment!

Cormagh
.

Relevant Pages

  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Anti=2DGun_Democrats_DEFEATED=2C_Again_=2D_Alabama_=93?= =?windows-12
    ... HB 362 would protect your right to lawfully transport and store ... make it difficult for employers to protect their employees. ... and Federal Law Enforcement protects The Law as per Supreme ... Court decision. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... I want less holes in said targets, and think a total hand gun ban ... our rights more and more in a vain effort to get people to actually pay ... BoR came from English Common Law, and was pounded into its final ... Yet, nonetheless, the BoR was put in place to protect individual ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... our rights more and more in a vain effort to get people to actually pay ... BoR came from English Common Law, and was pounded into its final ... Yet, nonetheless, the BoR was put in place to protect individual ... A criminal doesn't have to have a gun to e dangerous. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Something must be done... this is something...
    ... >>But we do to protect ourselves from the people who do do bad things. ... In the US, by law, they are not accountable to victims of crimes. ... Wasn't that equally true prior to the gun ban? ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: Overnighting in Wal-Mart with dogs
    ... It is my gun, not laws, that provides me with a modicum of real time ... How does you gun protect you from an automobile accident. ... How does your gun protect you from a DUI driver? ... How does your law protect you from a DUI driver? ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Loading