Gun control is not the American way!

Discussion in 'Driver Health' started by Moose Holland, Jun 3, 2022.

  1. Moose Holland

    Moose Holland Bobtail Member

    Jul 27, 2020
    Every American employed in transportation should not be disarmed on the job against his will by his employer's cowardly policy.

    Employers with anti-gun policy are anti-American. Period.

    I make this thread because a good part of health has to do with defending oneself against unlawful threats of bodily harm or death. Truck drivers and railroad workers may work a long way from home in unfamiliar parts and/or in scary places. You may have to stop in a remote section of road out in the middle of the desert at night to make minor repair on your truck. You might have to park and sleep overnight in an unsavory part of a big city. A railroad worker might have to get off his train to throw a switch lever in a dark forest with wild animals roaming about. I hear too many carriers in both road and rail freight have anti-gun policies. They have blatant disregard for the on-the-job security of their workers all on the account of cowardly liability fears.

    If you carry a concealed handgun on the job, even in pro-gun jurisdictions, you might risk losing your job because of it. I value my life and limb more than a job. No human should have to work for a living and be forced to be defenseless against criminal aggression while doing his job.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. Grumppy

    Grumppy Trucker Forum STAFF Staff Member

    Dec 11, 2010
    West Monroe, La
    While I support the 2nd amendment & the right to carry......

    So, its ok for you to be able to make the rules for your property, but not everyone else?
    Lets say that the local drunk comes to your property just milling around, maybe sleeping on your lawn. Dont you make the rules concerning your property? Dont you want the right to make your rules for your property and ask/tell him to move along? And if he doesnt, you can call the police & have them remove him because.......... wait for it....... its YOUR property. Hummmm... imagine that... someone able to make the rules for their own property rather than letting the local drunk make the rules so he can just do what he wants regardless that its your property, not his.

    So you loan cousin Jim Bob your car, he brings along some MaryJane that he bought in another state where its legal. So, he complains that it should be legal/ok to bring along some MJ in YOUR car, because he thinks its ok. Lets just make 'ol Moose suck it up. It aint Jim Bobs car but he wants to make the rules for it... forget what the owner thinks.

    At the end of the day, if its something you cant live without.......
    86scotty, mpd240, aussiejosh and 4 others Thank this.
  4. 201

    201 Road Train Member

    Apr 16, 2014
    high plains colorado
    We are at an impasse I doubt we , as a country, will recover from. The lines are clearly drawn. The gun nuts want MORE guns, to "protect" themselves, and anti-gun nuts, want all guns abolished. Raising the age limit is pure foolishness, most of these "gunmen"( not too many "gunwomen") get these weapons through illegal means, heck, my nephew BUILT an AK47 from parts off the innernet[sic]. The age limit is just a distraction for the real issue, to eliminate all guns, and that will never happen. Gun nuts will shoot their way out, rather than give them up. There is no solution. This hogwash, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", is such a cop out. Guns, however they are gotten, give an unstable person a way to carry out their "missions", and all the background checks in the world won't identify it. Naturally, I'm anti-gun, and cringe at every shooting, that seems to be a daily thing. As a country with these attitudes, it's going to get a lot worse before better, if ever.
    aussiejosh Thanks this.
  5. rbrtwbstr

    rbrtwbstr Road Train Member

    Jul 11, 2012
    in the bush somewhere
    I'm trying to figure out why we don't have armed security at every school in the country. May not stop all the school shootings, but if it stops one, well it's worth it.

    We send billions overseas to countries that would love to kill us, but we can't afford to pay a security guard to protect our kids? It's ludicrous
  6. Northern Nomad

    Northern Nomad Light Load Member

    Apr 1, 2020
    The frozen north
    Agreed. Have a single entry point with an armed guard or a LEO.
    The_vett and olddog_newtricks Thank this.
  7. gentleroger

    gentleroger Road Train Member

    Jun 1, 2010
    Most schools do have armed resources officers. They don't stop school shootings.

    There is extremely limited evidence on the effectiveness of SROs in deterring violence. There is no empirical support for the suggestion that SROs prevent school shootings.[lvii] Research on averted school shootings – incidents planned by students and then prevented – suggests that the key is having trusted adults whom other students can inform.[lviii]
    The Prevalence and the Price of Police in Schools
    Since Columbine in 1999, there have been 197 school shootings where armed SROs were present. They only successfully intervened in 3 of them. Schools with armed SROs tend to have twice the casualty rate.
    mpd240 and bryan21384 Thank this.
  8. Moose Holland

    Moose Holland Bobtail Member

    Jul 27, 2020
    No, sorry, wrong number! Most mass shooters in America got their guns legitimately through FFL dealers and passed background checks. Most mass shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones. Good people can't have guns there to shoot back. Criminals know this. Criminals don't pay any mind to the "gun-free zones" because they are already criminals. If they can do something as heinous as kill innocent folks, they can also do something as "heinous" as not following anti-gun restrictions. Some of these random shootings occur in Red Flad zones. Big help that does to "keep us all safe". Some of these shootings have even occurred while the Clinton "assault weapons" ban was still in effect. Remember Columbine in '99? Cops are mostly too late to show up to save innocent lives. A well-armed citizenry has always been the best crime deterrent. Period.

    Certain existing government, federal, state and other, regulations already dictate what employers can or cannot do even on their private properties in regard to treatment of employees. Some jurisdictions have disallowed employer policy regarding not keeping guns in employees' cars in parking lots at work. Deprivation of lawful armed self-protection in the workplace should not be one of the things employers should be allowed to do on American soil. Employers are not allowed, by federal mandate, to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, etc. even on their own private turf and you get the picture. No employer should ever be allowed to deprive a worker of Bill of Rights protections on the job. I should not be made to compromise my Constitutional protections, and personal security, in order to work for a living. I say Bill of Rights protections are indeed CIVIL rights and should be enforced by federal law. Texas law doesn't allow landlords to forbid tenants' from the keeping of firearms in the homes their rent. Yes, Texas landlords must tolerate the keeping of firearms on their private land by rent-paying tenants.
  9. scott180

    scott180 Road Train Member

    Dec 10, 2012
    Tooele, UT
    It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, you do not lose your constitutional rights based on location but you may have them restricted by voluntarily entering private property or told to leave.
    An example would be going to a anti-gun rally held in a private venue and inquiring about how many rapes, assaults and murders armed victims stoped. Now you have the right under the 1st amendment to say what you please but they have the right to ask you to leave private property.

    In Utah its a little different with the 2nd amendment. You are legally allowed to have a firearm on a companies property as long as it is secured in a automobile and the company has no right to prevent you from doing so. But the building is different, thay may ban firearms inside. If you break their policies you can't be charged with a crime. But as soon as they tell you to leave you must or you're trespassing and you can be arrested for that.
    Now a OTR driver is in an awful gray area.
    Even though a driver may call a truck home for weeks or even months at a time the courts have decided it is not a home, so if an employer says no guns while inside their equipment, then no guns in their equipment.

    I personally believe that if a company requires you to relinquish your ability to defend yourself then they should be civilly liable for your protection.

    I'll never understand how banning law abiding people from owning firearms stops criminals from getting guns. Is it the one law that they just won't break?

    I know women who have sacred off a rapist because they were armed. They weren't raped and they didn't shoot the guy so the most the police put down on a report is the possibility of a assault. Self protection is severely under reported.

    This hasn't been said in this thread yet but often I've heard that if you are pro 2nd amendment then you are pro school shootings. If that is true than it would also be true that if you're anti 2nd amendment you are pro rape. Think how absurd that is.
  10. JoeTruck

    JoeTruck Heavy Load Member

    Mar 13, 2015
    LOWER 48
    Ukraine is is our friend so we arm them
    Russia is our enemy so we disarm them
    The President wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
    At least he is letting us know where we stand.
  11. AModelCat

    AModelCat Road Train Member

    Jul 7, 2015
    From the perspective of a Canadian:

    We don't have shootings to near the extent America has them. We need to go through a multi-day training course and background/character witness checks before we're granted a license. Anyone who intends to harm someone else would never qualify for the license. Therefore, any attempt to restrict access to firearms is essentially an attack on the law-abiding citizen.

    As you see here, the more they push to ban firearms, the more you'll see the following type of scenario. Criminals will be armed regardless. Even if they have to manufacture them.
    The_vett, 86scotty, mpd240 and 2 others Thank this.
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  • Draft saved Draft deleted