Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jindal signs gun bill
The Morning Advocate ^ | July 4, 2008

Posted on 07/06/2008 5:54:26 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog

Bobby Jindal signs bill giving employees the right to have firearms in their automobiles "on company property".


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; employerrights; employmentatwill; freedomofcontract; guns; louisiana; propertyrights; rkba
AP via Morning Advocate
1 posted on 07/06/2008 5:54:27 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Good for Bobby!!!

For some reason I think he needs to run fast and far from McCain’s VP rumors...

Louisiana needs Bobby Jindal more than McCain needs him...

Now if we could only get our Texas legislators off their collective arses on this same issue...We tried it back in 2007, almost got it to the floor for a vote, but the session closed...

I think we have a good chance in 2009 to get this same type of bill thru this time...


2 posted on 07/06/2008 5:58:06 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The trade associations say the bill interferes with employers' right to decide whether to allow firearms on their property.

I would be more impressed with this line of argument if the trade associations made as big a stink about employers allowing smoking on the premises or anti-gun laws in other states that forbid possession of firearms in many private businesses.

For my part, I support the right of the employee to a safer workplace, that means having access to protection.
3 posted on 07/06/2008 6:00:37 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Absolutly correct. Texas needs 100% Open Carry as well.


4 posted on 07/06/2008 6:09:19 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

He does not have any authority to give that right - we already have it.


5 posted on 07/06/2008 6:11:37 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Seinfeld was a show about nothing - so is Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
"The trade associations say the bill interferes with employers' right to decide whether to allow firearms on their property."

I've always contended (and still do), that an employee keeping a firearm in his car "is" keeping it on HIS (not the employers) property. It is none of the company's business what any specific "thing" an employee has inside his car, as long as said "thing" isn't taken OUT of the car.

As was said upthread---"Good for Bobby" (and, of course, the legislators who voted in favor).

6 posted on 07/06/2008 6:15:48 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Thank you, NRA. They’re on a roll.


7 posted on 07/06/2008 6:24:39 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Absolutly correct. Texas needs 100% Open Carry as well.

Have you signed?

Texas Open Carry Petition

8 posted on 07/06/2008 6:33:36 AM PDT by houeto ("Drill Here! Drill Now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

So like, where is that dude that always slams him on this forum?


9 posted on 07/06/2008 6:35:23 AM PDT by correctthought (Hippies, want to change the world, but all they ever do is smoke pot and smell bad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Down with private property!


10 posted on 07/06/2008 6:38:39 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Uh, Oh.

Louisiana is turning into "The Wild West". We can expect screaming headlines about plant shootings momentarily...

11 posted on 07/06/2008 6:51:54 AM PDT by Gritty (Mandatory gun-free zones are in reality free-crime zones - John Stossel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
"Louisiana is turning into "The Wild West". We can expect screaming headlines about plant shootings momentarily... "

LOL---so true--whether such shootings actually happen or not.

12 posted on 07/06/2008 7:01:06 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Bobby Jindl for President!


13 posted on 07/06/2008 7:20:04 AM PDT by captjanaway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: captjanaway

Sorry.. my “a” stuck......

Bobby Jindal for President!


14 posted on 07/06/2008 7:20:31 AM PDT by captjanaway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: houeto

5887


15 posted on 07/06/2008 7:27:49 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: houeto

“responsibility to defend their self”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I cannot sign a petition containing such language as is displayed above. My fifth grade teacher would have gone berserk if I had written that line.


16 posted on 07/06/2008 7:29:54 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Does anyone still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

We can hope it makes it too a vote ! .........and passes !


17 posted on 07/06/2008 7:33:40 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
"1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury. "

How should this statement have been written?

18 posted on 07/06/2008 7:44:09 AM PDT by houeto ("Drill Here! Drill Now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: correctthought

I think he left after Jindal vetoed the pay raises.


19 posted on 07/06/2008 9:25:57 AM PDT by 03A3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: correctthought; abb

abb, your Jindal commentary is anxiously awaited.


20 posted on 07/06/2008 10:08:13 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: houeto

Individual is a single term. Has is the verb in singular. There’s no justifying the plural term their. That’s the first error. The second is to pair the plural their with the singular self. If you want to say their, you ought to say selves. And even that would be resoundingly crass.

The correct sentence would read:

Every (singular) individual (singular) has (singular) the right and responsibility to defend himself (singular) against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

Yours truly,
Grammar Police Superintendent


21 posted on 07/06/2008 10:13:46 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: houeto; RipSawyer
"1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury. "

How should this statement have been written?


"Their" and "self" don't go together. It can be rendered "themselves" or "himself" ("herself", "itself") or even "one's self" depending on what comes before.

The sentence could have been written as follows:

1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend himself against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

or alternatively,

1. All individuals have the right and responsibility to defend themselves against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.


22 posted on 07/06/2008 10:15:18 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal; Dr. Sivana; RipSawyer
Individual is a single term. Has is the verb in singular. There’s no justifying the plural term their. That’s the first error. The second is to pair the plural their with the singular self. If you want to say their, you ought to say selves. And even that would be resoundingly crass.

Well then, that does it for me. I'm removing my name from this petition. Those idiots will never be taken seriously. To heck with open carry.

;-)

23 posted on 07/06/2008 10:33:26 AM PDT by houeto ("Drill Here! Drill Now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: houeto

The Nadal-Federer match is making me nervous ;-)


24 posted on 07/06/2008 10:35:52 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal
Individual is a single term. Has is the verb in singular. There’s no justifying the plural term their.

It has become common usage to apply the word "they" to mean "he or she", and to apply related terms ("their", "themselves", etc.) similarly. Your suggested construction with "all individuals" is the preferred way to avoiding the issue.

While I would agree that formal writing should avoid using "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of indeterminate sex, such usage has become sufficiently common in informal writing that fighting it is going to be a losing battle.

A bigger pet peeve of mine is the inability of people to recognize the difference between a lectern and a podium. A lectern is a bookstand. A podium is the area behind the lectern where a person would stand. Literally, a podium should be raised, I have no objection, however, to using the term to refer to the area that would be raised for the speaker were the floor not flat. Someone may take the podium, or go to it; one stands on it rather than behind it, however. While one may place heavy objects on the podium, usually things like books would be placed on a lectern.

25 posted on 07/06/2008 11:09:20 AM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: houeto
How should this statement have been written?

1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend himself against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

When you write about a person of unknown or indeterminate gender, you write as if the person were male.

26 posted on 07/06/2008 11:52:44 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I’m not a native speaker. So these things matter much less to me. It does bother me that there appears to be a movement underway to eliminate the past participle from speech. Here’s the most common abuse: I should’ve WENT there rather than I should’ve GONE there. Another is the misapplication of verb tenses: If I WOULD HAVE KNOWN, I WOULD HAVE GONE rather than If I HAD known, I would have gone. Perhaps I should just appreciate that the alternative is: If I would have knew, I would have went.

I do think that people should me more attentive, though. This is, after all, the language of the constitution. It is, compared to most languages, very clean and linear. My father died when I was 12. My mother had to make property decisions but couldn’t do it by herself. She had to have his brother, my paternal uncle, oversee all details. In those days, they (my mother and uncle) never spoke or wrote in our native tongue. They communicated in English. Years later, I asked my mother why it was so. She said that it was because of the simplicity/linearity of the English language and that there are concepts which cannot be described in our native tongue. As a fluent speaker now, I am amazed and amused by the built-in deficiencies of all the other languages in which I am fluent. Obviously, this is the one I prefer and I remain sensitive to its lyricism.


27 posted on 07/06/2008 12:07:52 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

I have it on good authority that this is going to be one of the crown jewels of the 2009 session...

Keep your eyes peeled...


28 posted on 07/06/2008 3:09:18 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal
abb, your Jindal commentary is anxiously awaited.

Been out of town for a couple of days and just now getting in. I think Jindal was predisposed to sign this bill regardless. However, the scorching he got from conservatives over the PayRaise issue will further convince him he disses us conservatives at his peril. It's more likely he'll behave for the foreseeable future.

We will be watching.

29 posted on 07/07/2008 6:55:31 AM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

One for freedom!!!


30 posted on 07/07/2008 7:08:31 AM PDT by bmwcyle (If God wanted us to be Socialist, Karl Marx would have been born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb; correctthought

It was correctthought’s inquiry on post 9. I’ve read enough of what you’ve had to say about Jindal myself.


31 posted on 07/07/2008 7:37:29 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal
I’ve read enough of what you’ve had to say about Jindal myself.

Why did you bother pinging me, then?

32 posted on 07/07/2008 7:54:36 AM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: abb; correctthought

To direct you to correctthought’s inquiry and to give him the answer he was looking for. He did ask who it was who was dedicated to exposing Jindal. I pinged him, too. Perhaps I should’ve just provided the answer and pinged you on my response. Pardon me.


33 posted on 07/07/2008 7:59:47 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: definitelynotaliberal

Oh, it really wasn’t that important. I was just curious, but like our “friends” on the left, I’ve moved on.


34 posted on 07/07/2008 6:17:43 PM PDT by correctthought (Hippies, want to change the world, but all they ever do is smoke pot and smell bad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson