Hybrid employees

[montana]

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/qu...xyDp-b4ap0

[BluntForceTrauma]

Heh. Some of us already are — or soon will be — "hybrid" employees in our various workplaces.

Funny how the "real" world dictates practical policies that 2A supporters have long "theoretically" advocated: the right to keep and bear arms.

[stanc]

Heh. Some of us already are — or soon will be — "hybrid" employees in our various workplaces.

Funny how the "real" world dictates practical policies that 2A supporters have long "theoretically" advocated: the right to keep and bear arms.

Not even close. What 2A supporters have long advocated is allowing everybody to be armed.

In QT stores, only the so-called hybrid employees -- "people with the qualifications and credentials at the law enforcement-level" -- are allowed to be armed.

QT is copying the same government practice that 2A supporters object to. The only real difference is it's at the corporate level, as opposed to state and local.

[montana]

Not even close. What 2A supporters have long advocated is allowing everybody to be armed.

In QT stores, only the so-called hybrid employees -- "people with the qualifications and credentials at the law enforcement-level" -- are allowed to be armed.

QT is copying the same government practice that 2A supporters object to. The only real difference is it's at the corporate level, as opposed to state and local.

Actually Stan, I don't really disagree with you on the training part. If the concerned anti's proposed a real training course with x amount of rounds to be shot monthly on a realistic training course, I would support it. There is a big difference between skilled shooters and the occasional tin can shooter. That said, those same qualified shooters should be able to carry anywhere a law enfocement officers could with the same type of restrictions, like no alcohol.

[bj139]

Aren't corporations allowed to provide any private security they want to pay for?
Pinkerton guards were one of the first corporate security guards.

[stanc]

Actually Stan, I don't really disagree with you on the training part.

:confused: There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. I have not advocated any training requirement. It is the QuikTrip corporation that has a training requirement.

If the concerned anti's proposed a real training course with x amount of rounds to be shot monthly on a realistic training course, I would support it. There is a big difference between skilled shooters and the occasional tin can shooter. That said, those same qualified shooters should be able to carry anywhere a law enfocement officers could with the same type of restrictions, like no alcohol.

Are you saying that you think the right to bear arms should be infringed, that only people who are government-approved should be able to legally be armed? :eek:

[montana]

:confused: There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. I have not advocated any training requirement. It is the QuikTrip corporation that has a training requirement.


Are you saying that you think the right to bear arms should be infringed, that only people who are government-approved should be able to legally be armed? :eek:

I think everybody has the right to be armed, period. I do think mandatory training and instruction would not infringe on anybodies right to bear arms. I had to pass hunter safety at age 12, "which is the basic's of firearm safety" before I could legally hunt. I would gather most gun owners would not object to increased instruction if it meant increased ability to carry and own any firearm in any place. Depending on the firearm being used would depend on the type of instruction. You wish to carry concealed on public property, then the proper instruction should be given. You wish to own a belt fed MG-34, then the proper training would be given. This could all be done through volunteer organizations and people. Tax incentives to pay for ammunition and travel expenses would also be given. That said, all gun, magazine and travel bans would be null and void for all trained, certified gun owners. If proper training and competent gun owners is the goal, then this could happen very easily. But we all know the lefts goal is not competent, safe gun owners, but the complete power to disarm, subjugate and control the population. When the anti gun people state only the military or trained law enforcement should be able to carry firearms, then ask them about citizens who are better trained. You will get your answer.

[stanc]

I think everybody has the right to be armed, period. I do think mandatory training and instruction would not infringe on anybodies right to bear arms.

Second sentence contradicts the first. People who refuse to take the government-mandated training and instruction could not legally exercise their "right" to be armed.

I had to pass hunter safety at age 12, "which is the basic's of firearm safety" before I could legally hunt.

A perfect example of government control of a supposed right.

[montana]

Second sentence contradicts the first. People who refuse to take the government-mandated training and instruction could not legally exercise their "right" to be armed.

Many people today, are already being denied these rights without any means of obtaining them. If firearm competence and training was the lefts objective, then this would solve their concern and grant gun owners a means to the gun right they are suppose to have. Being well regulated, "AKA trained" could possibly be Constitutional. Like I said, this is not the lefts objective.

A perfect example of government control of a supposed right.

No, it only applies to minors.

[bj139]

There is no right to hunt in the Constitution.

[stanc]

No, it only applies to minors.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." Are not minors people?

There is no right to hunt in the Constitution.

Meh. There is no right to individual self defense in the Constitution, either.