Gun-free zones and how to regulate them (threadjack from controlling bleeding)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    We the American people need to demand that real solutions be offered against active shooters and terrorists. Some ideas:

    1) Until congress can pass the appropriate federal law an executive order needs to be issued that says the LTCH is good everywhere. My LTCH should be as valid as my Drivers license.

    2) Gun free zones are illegal. (they have been unconstitutional for years) Even the White House.

    3) Any and all gun training classes should be absolutely tax deductible. I do not favor requiring training for the right to defend ones self but training is a great idea and I say dangle a carrot. -No

    4) The purchase of one rifle, shotgun and pistol is also tax deductible. ( only once during your life) I like carrots. -No

    5) The laws for stolen guns need to have harsh penalties.

    6) The laws of irresponsible handling or brandishing of guns needs to be tougher.

    7) Homeland Security should form a volunteer force like the Minutemen of the American Revolution that could be called out in times of need when manpower was limited. -HELL No

    We cannot control if a terrorist strikes but we can put him in contact with his newly won virgins faster.

    Some of those I have serious issues with, especially the last one. And certain places it is 100% acceptable to prohibit firearms.
     

    indyjohn

    PATRIOT
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    77   0   0
    Dec 26, 2010
    7,505
    77
    In the trees
    Some of those I have serious issues with, especially the last one. And certain places it is 100% acceptable to prohibit firearms.

    You're missing the point.

    2ndAmendmentSense_zpsyhjj4nlk.jpg
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    :hijack: This thread seems to be intended to encourage folks to have some kind of medical supplies with them. Why, yes I do.

    We the American people need to demand that real solutions be offered against active shooters and terrorists. Some ideas:

    1) Until congress can pass the appropriate federal law an executive order needs to be issued that says the LTCH is good everywhere. My LTCH should be as valid as my Drivers license.

    2) Gun free zones are illegal. (they have been unconstitutional for years) Even the White House.

    3) Any and all gun training classes should be absolutely tax deductible. I do not favor requiring training for the right to defend ones self but training is a great idea and I say dangle a carrot.

    4) The purchase of one rifle, shotgun and pistol is also tax deductible. ( only once during your life) I like carrots.

    5) The laws for stolen guns need to have harsh penalties.

    6) The laws of irresponsible handling or brandishing of guns needs to be tougher.

    7) Homeland Security should form a volunteer force like the Minutemen of the American Revolution that could be called out in times of need when manpower was limited.

    We cannot control if a terrorist strikes but we can put him in contact with his newly won virgins faster.

    Some of those I have serious issues with, especially the last one. And certain places it is 100% acceptable to prohibit firearms.

    I have to agree with Kut (darn I hate that) on the last one. We are in the Indiana Malitia and DHS needs to be disolved.

    You're missing the point.

    2ndAmendmentSense_zpsyhjj4nlk.jpg
    :yesway:
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Some of those I have serious issues with, especially the last one. And certain places it is 100% acceptable to prohibit firearms.

    Are there any places where it is perfectly acceptable for free citizens to be at the mercy of people who wish to kill them for no reason other than where they were born, how they worship God, who they love, or what stuff they have?

    If there are such places as you describe, and not that fit the description in the above sentence I just typed, then people should be hired to defend those who have been forcibly disarmed, with their own lives on the line if they fail to do so. (That is, if they fail, they are executed.)

    Good luck finding anyone to take THAT job.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Tell me about those places where it is 100 percent acceptable to prohibit guns? Then explain to me whose side you are on?
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Are there any places where it is perfectly acceptable for free citizens to be at the mercy of people who wish to kill them for no reason other than where they were born, how they worship God, who they love, or what stuff they have?

    If there are such places as you describe, and not that fit the description in the above sentence I just typed, then people should be hired to defend those who have been forcibly disarmed, with their own lives on the line if they fail to do so. (That is, if they fail, they are executed.)

    Good luck finding anyone to take THAT job.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Tell me about those places where it is 100 percent acceptable to prohibit guns? Then explain to me whose side you are on?

    Hmmm.... let's see, we'll start with a secure facility such as a prison. You want to talk to you boo, your guns comes off. Agree or disagree?
    Is that 100% acceptable or just 50%? :dunno:
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Hmmm.... let's see, we'll start with a secure facility such as a prison. You want to talk to you boo, your guns comes off. Agree or disagree?
    Is that 100% acceptable or just 50%? :dunno:

    This is a fair example, albeit one that most normal people would not likely think of without some specific stimulus to do so. I will go with 50% to the extent that I would differentiate between open visiting areas and those booths where the closest a visitor ever gets to an inmate is sitting on opposite sides of a bulletproof window. As a bonus, allowing visitors to remain armed under such circumstances could well prove to yield a good hunting ground for felons with guns as many visitors are no more ethical than their inmate friends.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I was thinking more of places that the general public would venture on a day to day basis.

    I have to say that is one that I hadn't thought of because I have never done it.
     

    Koven

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 2, 2016
    66
    6
    Leo
    7) Homeland Security should form a volunteer force like the Minutemen of the American Revolution that could be called out in times of need when manpower was limited.

    We cannot control if a terrorist strikes but we can put him in contact with his newly won virgins faster.

    This, definitely this.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Full disclosure: I messaged Kut this morning to let him know that Coach's and my questions awaited his reply.

    Kut, you answered Coach's question, though I don't see where you addressed mine. After disregarding the snark from the last line, wishing "good luck" in my post, though, I don't see where you answered mine. Prison and other "secure facilities" don't make it acceptable for a free citizen to be at the mercy of killers. Too, when you, as an officer, go there, you enter armed, utilize a provided lockbox, complete your business, and leave armed. Is there a reason something like that can't or shouldn't exist for "everyone else"? I ask because as I see it, even if there are as you claim, places where it's 100% acceptable for guns to be prohibited, none of the routes to and from those places are similarly acceptable, and that doesn't even consider the fact that some such places, prisons among them, forbid the average citizen from even bringing the gun onto the property in a locked vehicle. As an example, when I did an Appleseed in Wabash, I passed by the prison in Miami Co., and noted how remote it is. I live several counties away. If I wanted to go visit my hypothetical son, who had been incarcerated there, I would have to make a drive of several hours, unarmed, to do so.
    Is it still perfectly acceptable for me, a citizen without so much as a traffic ticket, to have to be forcibly disarmed under the law, for a period of hours and a long drive, solely to satisfy some malum prohibitum dictate? Or, to put it in a different perspective, suppose that the person visiting is instead, my daughter. She's 5'4" or so, and would likely be traveling, again, several hours, with my less-than-year-and-a-half grandson. Is it still acceptable that she be out on the roads, disarmed? Because THAT is the effect of those laws.
    As I told you in my PM, I do apologize for my snark in the original post. It came out at you, and should not have. My disgust with moronic laws like this sometimes does come out inappropriately, especially if I'm tired when I post, but while I presently disagree with the totality of the ban you favor, I do see that keeping the inmates and the guns separated is wise. The law and I disagree sharply on the distance we keep between the two, however.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Are there any places where it is perfectly acceptable for free citizens to be at the mercy of people who wish to kill them for no reason other than where they were born, how they worship God, who they love, or what stuff they have?

    If there are such places as you describe, and not that fit the description in the above sentence I just typed, then people should be hired to defend those who have been forcibly disarmed, with their own lives on the line if they fail to do so. (That is, if they fail, they are executed.)

    Good luck finding anyone to take THAT job.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Tell me about those places where it is 100 percent acceptable to prohibit guns? Then explain to me whose side you are on?

    Hmmm.... let's see, we'll start with a secure facility such as a prison. You want to talk to you boo, your guns comes off. Agree or disagree?
    Is that 100% acceptable or just 50%? :dunno:
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Full disclosure: I messaged Kut this morning to let him know that Coach's and my questions awaited his reply.

    Kut, you answered Coach's question, though I don't see where you addressed mine. After disregarding the snark from the last line, wishing "good luck" in my post, though, I don't see where you answered mine. Prison and other "secure facilities" don't make it acceptable for a free citizen to be at the mercy of killers. Too, when you, as an officer, go there, you enter armed, utilize a provided lockbox, complete your business, and leave armed. Is there a reason something like that can't or shouldn't exist for "everyone else"? I ask because as I see it, even if there are as you claim, places where it's 100% acceptable for guns to be prohibited, none of the routes to and from those places are similarly acceptable, and that doesn't even consider the fact that some such places, prisons among them, forbid the average citizen from even bringing the gun onto the property in a locked vehicle. As an example, when I did an Appleseed in Wabash, I passed by the prison in Miami Co., and noted how remote it is. I live several counties away. If I wanted to go visit my hypothetical son, who had been incarcerated there, I would have to make a drive of several hours, unarmed, to do so.
    Is it still perfectly acceptable for me, a citizen without so much as a traffic ticket, to have to be forcibly disarmed under the law, for a period of hours and a long drive, solely to satisfy some malum prohibitum dictate? Or, to put it in a different perspective, suppose that the person visiting is instead, my daughter. She's 5'4" or so, and would likely be traveling, again, several hours, with my less-than-year-and-a-half grandson. Is it still acceptable that she be out on the roads, disarmed? Because THAT is the effect of those laws.
    As I told you in my PM, I do apologize for my snark in the original post. It came out at you, and should not have. My disgust with moronic laws like this sometimes does come out inappropriately, especially if I'm tired when I post, but while I presently disagree with the totality of the ban you favor, I do see that keeping the inmates and the guns separated is wise. The law and I disagree sharply on the distance we keep between the two, however.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Well Bill, I really don't see how once can have issue with being disarmed in a secure facility. I'll point out, that your question hinges more on the issue that armed officers have the privilege of being provided lockbox during their visits than actually contesting whether or not there places where it is acceptable to prohibit the possession of firearms. In that regard you, the family member, are going to visit a relative. It is a completely voluntary visit, as you are not compelled to be there. Officers, aren't making "social calls" to see prison inmates.... it is an extension of their job.

    Most of the places I believe, where the 2nd Amendment does not apply universally, are places related to functions of govt. I think it would be absolutely insane if firearms were allowed in the White House, courtrooms, the congressional houses, the Pentagon, and other places essential to keeping the wheels of govt turning.

    To give extreme examples, to make a point..... it is well accepted, on INGO, that RKBA should include any and everything that is considered an "arm," right? Let's say you organize and INGO field trip, and invite 10 members to see the sights in the nation's capitol, and decide to first visits the White House. You decide to carry a RPG, a couple of guys have FA M16s, another with a shotgun and a backpack full of tannerite, and the rest with SA AKs. You walk to the entrance of the WH, to begin your tour, and a guard raises his hand and say..... "sorry, guys no third world arsenals." You repeat this at the Supreme Court and the Pentagon, and are also turned away. Are you honestly going rant about bout your RKBAs have been infringed? Can you explain to me why you believe that you should be granted access to these places?

    It's debatable whether or not, in certain places where one is compelled or commanded to be, if one can be justifiably disarmed. However, I see no such logic, in debating whether one can be disarmed, in certain places, that they voluntarily choose to be. If your son commits a crime, and goes to prison, that's on him. If you choose to visit him in the place he chose to be, that's on you. Don't complain because in order to visit a criminal, you are voluntarily giving up your rights.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Well Bill, I really don't see how once can have issue with being disarmed in a secure facility. I'll point out, that your question hinges more on the issue that armed officers have the privilege of being provided lockbox during their visits than actually contesting whether or not there places where it is acceptable to prohibit the possession of firearms. In that regard you, the family member, are going to visit a relative. It is a completely voluntary visit, as you are not compelled to be there. Officers, aren't making "social calls" to see prison inmates.... it is an extension of their job.

    Most of the places I believe, where the 2nd Amendment does not apply universally, are places related to functions of govt. I think it would be absolutely insane if firearms were allowed in the White House, courtrooms, the congressional houses, the Pentagon, and other places essential to keeping the wheels of govt turning.

    To give extreme examples, to make a point..... it is well accepted, on INGO, that RKBA should include any and everything that is considered an "arm," right? Let's say you organize and INGO field trip, and invite 10 members to see the sights in the nation's capitol, and decide to first visits the White House. You decide to carry a RPG, a couple of guys have FA M16s, another with a shotgun and a backpack full of tannerite, and the rest with SA AKs. You walk to the entrance of the WH, to begin your tour, and a guard raises his hand and say..... "sorry, guys no third world arsenals." You repeat this at the Supreme Court and the Pentagon, and are also turned away. Are you honestly going rant about bout your RKBAs have been infringed? Can you explain to me why you believe that you should be granted access to these places?

    It's debatable whether or not, in certain places where one is compelled or commanded to be, if one can be justifiably disarmed. However, I see no such logic, in debating whether one can be disarmed, in certain places, that they voluntarily choose to be. If your son commits a crime, and goes to prison, that's on him. If you choose to visit him in the place he chose to be, that's on you. Don't complain because in order to visit a criminal, you are voluntarily giving up your rights.

    True colors...
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    True colors...

    Perhaps, but I don't live in a land where unicorns hurdle rainbows. If you have something to add, besides your knowledge of the Cyndi Lauper discography, feel free to contribute.
     
    Last edited:

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Since this one's officially off the rails, I'll ask the "we should be able to take our guns everywhere" folks if they think all police and other government agents should be disarmed.

    I will go with one rule or no rule. Doing otherwise is how public servants become public masters.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I'm not following?

    The rise of the European aristocracy, the original nobles of the sword as opposed to the nobles of the robe like the political suckups of the later days of the French monarchy, or people like Elton John being given knighthoods, happened in an evolution similar with that of trends I see forming up with law enforcement. It took several generations for it to happen, but the humble defender of the village eventually became the lord and owner of the village and the people contained therein. This shapes much of my position regarding law enforcement and the idea that there is no room in a free society for some animals to be more equal than others.

    Besides this, we can return to the absence of an asterisk in the Second Amendment and the fact that, as Bill has so thoroughly explained, it is entirely possible to keep inmates separate from weapons without curbstomping the Constitution.

    As for your distinction between purposes for visits, I offer you one question: Who paid for the damned prison in the first place? Your position there necessarily rests on the notion that the rule of law emanates from government as a self-existent entity rather than as an agent of the citizens.
     
    Top Bottom