I had to google "gibbet" for both definition and pronunciation. I shall now use it in every day speech.
We have a winner!
This thread had me at "allowed".
It seems to be a common way to get people to give up freedoms or at least be sneaky about gaining power. Get them focused on, and talking about, the pro's and con's of a decision and distracted from the fact that the "decision" shouldn't be up to others.
The real question should've been: Should EMS companies be allowed to prohibit first responders from carrying firearms?
The answer, of course, being NO.
I disagree, so long as the EMS company is not publicly owned. I figure the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.
^^ this.How about this: everyone carries, until they demonstrate that they should not be trusted.
I disagree, so long as the EMS company is not publicly owned. I figure the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.
Are the owners going to provide armed security for the EMS? Yah didn't think so, why should I have to take a bullet because my employer is an idiot?
I figured the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.
I don't think you'll get support from the Ambulance Companies.
Is anyone forcing you to work for them? Someone told me back when I was on a rig that Detroit is issuing sidearms to their medics, so it's not like every provider will have policies to make you helpless.
FWIW, I support the idea of more people carrying. I don't support blaming the boss for the choices we make, and no, that's not a pointed statement at you, SMiller. I think it sucks that any non-threat should be prohibited. Not like it stops the bad ones, anyway.
Blessings,
Bill
I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.
I don't disagree, but I don't see what allowing employees to carry has to do with running a business. If an employee threatens someone with said firearm, or otherwise uses it to commit a criminal act, you don't need any additional justification to fire them or file criminal charges. Possession should not be restricted by employers.
Their support isn`t needed, the Constitution supports it.
I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.
^^^^ This.
I understand that some companies may have areas or environments in which a firearm constitutes a safety hazard, but even then, it would have to be a hazard that was inherent in the presence of the firearm, not it's use.
Do either of you have the right to restrict who may bring what onto your private property? If so why do you wish to strip that same right from a business?
Just like with the now infamous "parking lot bill", my right to keep and bear arms should not be curtailed because my company might hate freedom and the Second Amendment, period. There simply is no justification for infringing upon the right that the Constitution states very clearly shall not be infringed. It`s incredible that here, of all places, an explanation for this position would be necessary.