DRM

If an employer wants to fire an employee - they can, at any time. They can do so giving no reason, or good reason, but not bad reason. Bad reason would be firing someone for a reason not allowed by law.

You are free to clarify further. For someone who doesn't want to engage me, this now makes 2 replies directed specifically to me with you adding zero substance to the discussion. Can we get back to the topic now? I'd rather talk about it anyway

It will be a pretty tall order for them to justify the application of the commerce clause here, OR to ignore the fact that Congress left out the wording in this law that protects the remainder from being canned if one part is canned. Not saying they won't disappoint me, but it's a tall order.

Go borrow a shotgun capable of 3.5" shells, half a dozen boxes of said 3.5" heavy load shells, and shoot until boxes are empty. I'll pretty much guarantee you won't complain about rifle recoil again

Just one more step on it's way to the SCOTUS. The sooner, the better - IMHO.

I wasn't aware this was only a 2 party private conversation. If you can't understand or handle the concept of an open discussion forum, perhaps you'd be better off ignoring those of us who do get it.

Winder if they will pay me royalties to add my button in there? Cha-ching!!!

First - thanks for answering. It bothers me because it carries a negative tone. Considering the entire purpose of a project like this is to project a positive image - carefully shaping and controlling the language is a pretty normal part of the process If we all wear ribbons to promote cancer awareness, it's an awareness campaign, not a protest. Same concept. Was part of the carry class I took last year. I've been a member on and off as I get more or less disenfranchised with (and this goes beyond just this discussion) players in the game are self serving, and it doesn't do them any good to eliminate the game. But that's the specific reason, anyway I asked because it seems so far that many of the people who are against such an OC event are ambivalent at best about the practice, and some seem to openly show disdain for it. And it's disappointing to me to see people willing only to defend the rights they like or agree with, and so easily throw the others under the bus, especially if they perceive a potential threat to one of their preferred rights. That might not be your position, but I think there are examples of it here in this thread.

All that said - you really didn't answer his question (other than by the mere fact that you seem to accept permission is acceptable in lieu of a right, you are saying you agree you have ceded to the opposition and that it is not a right at all). Are you stating that is your view, or just why things "are the way they are". Proving it and it being a right aren't necessarily the same thing, and I think you're right about why we won't see it change... To be honest - I think it's sad that some people are so scared to lose the permissions they do have, they won't stand up for the rights they allowed to be converted into permissions.

That's not snobbery - that's genuine concern... an entirely different situation, and the reasonable response of any person who cares for his fellow man's safety.

Please, don't call it a "protest". Nothing is being protested. And I happen to disagree that "sizable donations" to the NRA is a better answer. No thanks, they are part of the problem, IMHO. Simple yes or no questions for you Robert of you don't mind answering them: 1. Do you think OC should be a legal? 2. Would you fight to retain OC rights should the government try to take them away?

Sorry you can't imagine it, but it happened - nobody died, and some respectable looking gun owners exercised their rights and educated some people - both in person and those reading the paper the next day. That isn't "showing off". Also keep in mind: If sometimes you don't do something just because you can, you wake up one day to find out someone decided you CAN'T.

From some of my AZ friends... evidently many in that state do not share the "it's not the time" or "they will use it against us" attitude when it comes to expanding their gun rights: New Arizona legislation aims to loosen gun laws Don't skip over this part: If that part doesn't make you giggle, you're broken inside

I think it is.

I think the part in red is where it crosses the line from just having an opinion to being a gun snob. And even that can be a little iffy - since the the difference between informing and disparaging is sometimes all in the presentation.

yeah, "uncomfortable" is all I was shooting for

Understood. A 20-something web-friend from another state participated in an OC gathering at their state capitol. He was OC'ing an AR pistol on a sling, and was dressed in a nice black suit and hat. The AR pistol obviously garnered considerable attention from the media covering the event - but the press photo's were far from threatening due to his choice in attire. His choice in weapon also got him some "air time" with the media to share his reasonable views in a calm and educated manner. Could it have been a Kwik-type setting? Sure - it shared all of the same ingredients, EXCEPT the person with the gun. So instead of an embarrassment to gun owners, it was an VERY positive image that was portrayed, and a definite WIN for gun owners everywhere.

That one didn't fly over your flat top

Glad to see them coming down - but in reality they should be even lower.

I tried a button with "Armed and Normal", but it didn't look or sound right - lol. Plus, I think "safe" gets double meaning: the wearer is safer for being armed, and the reader should not fear the wearer as being a threat, or UNsafe. Armed - Legal - Safe = I think that states the facts pretty well. Button tells you I am armed. Button informs you I am doing so legally. Button reassures you I am not a threat (I've never seen a "take this note and give the small bills" button caught on a security camera at the bank).

Razor wire, and something that can lay down ground fire and/or some type of gas deployment system would be... wait, wut?

Sorry for your loss So what happened - fire, theft, other? if theft - did they breach the locking mechanism (crack the safe), or was it a physical assault? If a physical assault - did they drill the lock, attack the door, or use tools to cut into the safe? Please share with us so we can be better prepared ourselves. Ive seen the videos online of guys attacking the sub $1k safes with brute force or power tools: But neither of those safes are bolted down, and I don't know about you - but I don't keep my safe in an open warehouse floor Point is - like Sgt. Joe said in part of his reply - there is more to a safe than the safe itself. Properly bolting one to the structure means it can't be pushed over or moved. Properly bolting it down also means they can't as easily use leverage to pry it open. Bolting it into a corner means they can't cut as easily around the safe with power or cutting tools. Placing the safe in a room or location where they can't maneuver a 6' pry bar into the door crack also makes brute force attacks more difficult. Some $500-$1k safes have thin outer metal bodies, but a person handy with a welder and some sheet steel can beef up the body of an existing safe. Then there is the security of the house/building itself. I view it all as a security system. Always remember - given enough time and resources, EVERY safe can be breached. What you want to do is make it as difficult and time consuming as possible to get to that point. Not to forget - issues with fire can be addressed by not only checking the fire rating on the safe, but placing the safe in an area of the house that generally does not get as hot or stay burning as long in a traditional house fire. Issues with flooding should also be considered when placing your safe. Again - a "better safe" isn't a stand alone answer for protecting your assets better.

I agree it is not as bold of a statement, but perhaps it is the better way to ease into the process. Assuming the goal is to create an annual day - you start with the button and each individual can judge for themselves how and where it may be appropriate to OC. Since the eventual goal is getting more people comfortable with guns in general (not just OC), I would hope more people - both carriers and non - would become more comfortable with people exercising their OC rights. An interesting idea. Have you see this tried before? I normally pocket carry myself - but could easily wear one of my larger OWB holsters - empty - at the same time. But don't discount the button idea totally. What a button says to me is that the person wearing it took the time to be informed about an organized event, and is not just doing this on a whim. I think that says a lot too. Just threw this together in MS Paint: Something like that...

Ethics is such a trick question... not on a personal level - most people find it pretty easy to apply their own code of ethics without much trouble. Problem is when you start comparing different people's ethical views, you realize "ethics" doesn't always mean the same thing to everybody. That said, to address the "I would never..." type comments: I would never say I would never do _________________ .

I have some ideas I might try on the sheath before I give up on it and get a replacement. First is to get the plastic out and cut it down about 1" to 1.5". Also like you said try to get it to fit a little more snug, then reinstall. Excess material at the bottom can be folded back under then stitched - basically making a bottom belt loop. We'll see how my idea pans out