Top

News

Should Employee Be Fired For Shooting Suspects?

<< previous (newer) discussion

Moderated by rico

Add to this Discussion

Should Employee Be Fired For Shooting Suspects?

T O P I C

Discussion Started: 06-29-2000, 3:12 PM

Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N

A McDonald's employee pulled out his gun and shot two robbers who were holding up the restaurant. McDonald's does not allow employees to carry guns on its premises. Should the employee lose his job? Or should company policy be ignored since the worker probably saved lives? Tell us what you think.

View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]

waco

02-19-2002, 1:24 PM

Danagirl, ask the employees who make minimum wage, staring at the business end of the robbers gun if their co-worker was carrying for no reason. By stating that he could easily kill black, gay cutomers, you assume he is a straight, white guy. He could just as easily use a knife or baseball bat to do that.

DarkKnight

08-09-2001, 1:53 AM

Give the employee a free Big Mac, 2 weeks fully paid vacation to Hawaii--and a big party w/honors from the city when he returns. The employee saved lives--and saved taxpayers millions to prosecute and imprison two born losers who resort to stealing and God knows what other dangerous crimes against society.

What....me worry? Alfred E. Neumann Mad Magazine

danagirl

08-03-2001, 1:35 PM

Ok yall are idiots. He should be fired and they should file charges against him. He broke their policy. He had a gun on him for no reason. Secondly he could have used that gun on a customer say a gay or black person or someone he doesnt like (assuming he is a racist etc.). Lastly there is no proof he saved lives. Most robbers carry guns never intend to use them they use them for fear to get control of the subject to get them to give them money. So they should file charges against him and the robbers.

Love Dana

Doubro

07-24-2001, 9:29 PM

You Putz.

Back in the 1700's The term "Arms" in the Constitution was generally understood to mean "Small Arms", as it refered to individuals. They had a word for weapons that were too large to carry and it was "Ordinance". The ICBM's of today would be considered field ordinance and not ARMs in the context of individual rights.

The reason there were a few, sparce examples of gun control, and regulation being accepted during that time is because people were ignorant then as they are today who don't understand their rights. SOme of the stock piles were simply pragmatic, because in a war situation they want to centralize their weapons cache in order to be ready quicker to mobilize. It had NOTHING to do with controling the behavior of citizens in regard to private ownership of guns.

The First Clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A Well Regulated Militia Being Neccessary to the Security of a Free State..." IS THE SUBORDINANT one , while the rest of it "The People's RIght to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the Main one.

What they were saying is that it's a perrenial TRUTH that a "well regulated (read uniformly practiced and well functioning) Militia (read pool of all able bodied civilians to become citizen solders)is neccessary to continue to have a truly "FREE STATE"...the peoples (already existing) RIGHT to keep arms shall NOT be infringed.

If they were talking about some collective or States right they NEVER would have used the word "People" with a capital "P" as that refers to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS in ALL the other relative amendments as well.

The Right to control the means of coercion rest with the People, not the Government.

OhJWR

01-18-2001, 4:57 AM

Give that employee a raise and an accomidation. Great for him. He was in fear for his life and he used what means necessary to protect himself. Good for him.

jamesb2207

01-16-2001, 7:55 AM

Heck No ! If those stiffnecks who write the policy's at McDonalds or any similar sites were to have been there, the would have thanked the Lord & Smith & Wesson, for his actions.

willway

01-13-2001, 7:59 AM

i'm baaaaack! yes its me a different computer but yet still the same role in this discussion. and that would be the unspoken opinion. a gun was pulled tonight and yes it was aimed at me and my friends. really funny how quick the cops came and controlled the situation. like lightning. all it takes is the dialing finger. one who is willing to let the big boys handle it. its that simple like pouring milk on cereal if you catch my drift. still stubborn ask my friends how fast they peed their pants and ask them if they think guns should be played with like toys. get a badge if you want to pack heat baby or i'll visit you in jail.. peace

Scrapy

01-05-2001, 12:32 PM

Rules are rules. He should be fired if the policy was not to have guns there. Even though he did save lives but what if the situation turned bad instead of good and he ended up getting more peopled killed? Why was he carrying a gun in the first place himself?

retnuh

09-03-2000, 2:52 AM

Whoa! Call the Anthropology department I've just discovered the missing link! GUNTOTNSCHLEB you're as presumptuous as you are ignorant. You're an idiot first off by making the statement that you'd shoot it out with a cop over a stupid gun - you would lose. Second you are as unpatriotic as you are paranoid. There is more to this country than the second amendment - or has the NRA convinced you otherwise? Tool. So tell me, do you have to be angry and carry a gun to be a "True American"? Your lack of intelligence is obvious because you've bought the alarmist NRA NWO-they're-going-to-take-your-freedom hook, line, and sinker. If you or any of your rabid ilk would stop licking your Rugers and AK-47s long enough to listen to the experts and read a little history you might come to realize that the 2nd Amendment never granted the "right" of private possession of firearms. The full text of the 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first phrase qualifies the second phrase, not the other way around. "People" does not refer to individuals. "well regulated" is NOT inconsistent with gun control, in fact to regulate something IS to keep it ordered and controlled. Prior to the American Revolution the colonies restricted gun ownership to free, white males and required that guns be stored in a central location (gun control). States regulated the sale and storage of guns and conducted gun censuses (gun control). When the 2nd Amendment was adopted every state regulated gun sales and ownership (more gun control). The states continued to adopt regulations after the amendment went into effect (oh my god, more gun control!). Though the 2nd Amendment was designed to limit federal rather than state action, the fact that all the states had gun-control laws suggests that Americans in the framers' day did not consider gun control a violation. Also, I first said right in quotations; there are provisions that allow the bill of rights to be suspended, will it ever happen - very, very unlikely. Plus the Bill of Rights can be amended, and has been many times. My point is is that the "right" you pontificate about is, although stable, NOT inalienable. And finally, and very importantly, the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the term "arms". Was that term meant to include machine guns, grenade launchers, patriot missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons even? They are all "arms" are they not? Even if the 2nd guaranteed private possession do you honestly think that you and the unintelligible "80,000,000 Patriotic Americans" have the right to harbor an ICBM? Even Heston couldn't be so arrogant to claim so. Therefore that means two things: 1) limitations on arms is implied in the 2nd, and 2) the definition of "arms" can be interpreted and reinterpreted as seen fit for the times. Condsidering that I'm quite comfortable with you toting a muzzle-loading musket.

melaleuca

09-02-2000, 8:18 PM

You can get more done with a KIND WORD...

(and a gun) than with a kind word alone.

Wally Butler - Police Officer

PS I just sold all of the McDonalds stock that I owned.

McDonalds should try the weight loss program and stay out of politics.

Page 1 of 26

<< Prev Page | Next Page >>