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

[Kutnupe14]

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.

So I guess you're suggesting that we should abolish LE? It appears that you want the powers or LE. You personally can't arrest for all crimes, get involved in chases in a vehicle, point a gun at a person who is not complying with your orders, handle illicit drugs, compel a person to stop their vehicle, nor detain a person who does not wish to be detained. So you have issue that those in law enforcement can do these things? If so, then you MUST be suggesting that we abolish LE, so you can get part of that action too.

Fact of the matter, if you want to phrase it that way, it is true "some animals are more equal than others."
I'm pretty sure you can't tap phone lines, use chemical agents to do hair, wage war against a foreign nation, negotiate with foreign govts, fly a commercial airliner, transport nuclear material, filibuster a congressional bill, keep a cadaver in your basement to dissect, sit in black robes and pass judgment on legal cases, or get up from gallery in courtroom, and sit in the jury box and vote on guilt or innocence.

So let's abolish them all, since you feel like you're missing out, and let you get in on the fun.

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.

You won't ever get me to believe that the founders, upon the drafting of the Constitution thought.... "everybody should have guns everywhere they should go, and to hell with the tyrants who would disarm us as we entered a prison."
But I digress... you think prisoners having access to firearms is the only issue? How about the guys coming into the prison WITH the firearms???? It's not exactly unknown for people to try to shoot their way into places to free someone being detained.

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.

The people did. You've paid, for:
My first uniform - and no I wouldn't let you try it on
F16s - and no I doubt they'll let you take it for a spin
Roads - no, you can't have a family picnic in the middle of it during rush hour
Air Force One - No, you can't hitch a ride with the president
The Lincoln Memorial - no, you can paint it green
The White House - no you can't get a key and spend a night from time to time
The CDC - No, you can't get a sample of Ebola
M1A1s - no you can't have one to take your date to your HS reunion

Just because you paid for it (a portion) does not entitle you to universal access to use. How is that not common sense?

 

[Bill of Rights]

That answers part of my question, Kut, and before I continue, thank you for the reasoned answer. I appreciate the opposing viewpoint.

My issue is not with the armed officer, in my example, it's with the prohibition; Correct me if I'm in error, but as a citizen, the law forbids (or allows a rule/ordinance/etc that has the effect of forbidding) me to even have a firearm in my locked vehicle outside of said "secure facility", which term I quote because if it was truly secure, there would be no issue with any non-inmate being armed there: The inmates are securely locked away, without contact with the free society.

My main point here is that, even if I wasn't arrested simply for bringing the holstered gun to the property, let alone into the building, were I to ask to use one of those lockers, I would likely be denied, yes? So my question is, "Why?" I care far less that an officer is armed than that I am prohibited to be, and more so that my wife or daughter is similarly prohibited. Call it sexist if you like, (I don't think you will, Kut, due to your Southern roots) but I was raised that you stand up to defend a lady, rather than abandon her at the roadside (etc.)

While yes, the visit is voluntary, it's not like the hypothetical person being visited can come visit me instead, and I sincerely doubt you mean to say that a parent should write off his/her child or a sister her brother for whatever time he is locked away. Further, if the law and the courts never, ever made a mistake and locked up the wrong person, that argument just might hold some water, but as it is, the inmate in question might not have made any such choice as you indicate. However rare that may occur (and yes, I know the jails are full of innocent people, just ask them) the fact is that a guiding legal principle is that it is better a hundred guilty go free than that a single innocent be punished. What you seem to be advocating is that the family be punished for the deeds of the inmate, and that's without even considering the question of actual vs. "convicted" guilt.


I read also your points that places of government should somehow be treated as temples of nonviolence. If that is so, why are all the officers there at all, let alone armed? Could it be because evil (or even simply misguided) people do bad things sometimes, and someone must be there to stop those threats?

Given that officers cannot and indeed should not be able to be everywhere, why should the good, honest, peaceable citizen be prohibited from carry in these places? Before you answer, consider that even a couple of years before OC was lawful there, the Texas State Capitol building had in place procedures to address the good citizen who is armed and visiting: They had and still have what amounted to an express line through security, allowing those who could lawfully carry a handgun faster entry into the building.

To date, I'm not aware of any Texas State legislator being at risk since the inception of that policy. I believe there are a few other states that have similar policies and procedures for their State Capitols. Given this, I can't agree with your conclusion about the insanity of "allowing" firearms in those places... other than in the hands of the minions of government.
(I'd like to clarify that I don't mean that term as an insult, though I can't say that various lawmakers seem to think of our LEOs in that manner, sort of a "We'll allow you to be armed because we control you and we expect that you'll make every effort to die so that none of us has to.")


Wow... When you go for an extreme example, you go almost all out, don't you? No "suitcase nuke" canard? Yes, the RKBA should include "arms". I'm not sure ordnance qualifies, but I'm similarly unsure it does not. I'll disregard that issue for the moment, just as you disregarded the fact that the people on that field trip would never get anywhere close to the sights you mention, thanks to the travesty called law in our nation's capitol: Who, other than a LEO, may lawfully carry there? Have they even issued 50 permits in the last 5 years since Heller?

I'll similarly discard the fact that the guys with the FA M16s you mention are probably a safer bet than the average DC cop, and have likely had a more stringent background check done on them before they got their stamps than those officers, too. Regardless, I don't think anyone is wanting to carry long guns to the WH, SC building, or the Pentagon.

Be that as it may, if you must prohibit carry in those buildings, and I'm not convinced that that is indeed a need due to a compelling government interest, I again ask about the weapons lockers. DC is not exactly high on the "safe communities" list, as I recall. By disarming the citizen entirely, rather than simply inside the building, that citizen is now unarmed before the very people, robbers/thieves/rapists/murderers, against whom he typically goes armed.


Perhaps our elected officials SHOULD work in buildings without the "gun free" tag on them. Perhaps they SHOULD have a good, healthy fear of their constituents, the People. Maybe they would actually work for the people again, and not just for re-election.


As to why I should be granted access to those places, if I want to go see my employee, perhaps to discuss with him or her how I want to see the job I hired him/her to do done, I don't see Constitutional authority to prohibit me from doing so. Indeed, it's right there in the 1A that I have the right to petition my government, that is, my representative, for redress of grievance. IIRC, the SCOTUS has held that right inviolate, such that even if the claims being made to support the right are blatantly false, the People MUST retain the right of petition. In short, for all the talk of no right being without limitation, that one apparently is.

Lastly, I addressed this above, but I think it needs touched upon again. You said that it is debatable whether or not one may justifiably be disarmed. Above, you also said that it would be insane to "allow" firearms into courtrooms. I know I've discussed that question on here with someone, but I'm not sure if it was you. I concede the fact that the participants and/or friends/relatives are probably going to get hot tempered.

Too, the idea that one might attempt to avenge a family member or friend is not at all farfetched. At the same time, we don't exercise prior restraint upon someone because of something they "might" do. This practice, to me, does exactly that. It also makes all those people who are compelled to be there be unarmed, for the convenience of the person who comes in three ways from pi**ed off at the judge from a case last week, and ready to punch lots of holes in anyone in sight in the building. It's not the gun.

Controlling the gun only emboldens the criminals, whether elected, appointed, or "on the wrong side of the law".


At least that's how I see it.

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.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So I guess you're suggesting that we should abolish LE? It appears that you want the powers or LE. You personally can't arrest for all crimes, get involved in chases in a vehicle, point a gun at a person who is not complying with your orders, handle illicit drugs, compel a person to stop their vehicle, nor detain a person who does not wish to be detained. So you have issue that those in law enforcement can do these things? If so, then you MUST be suggesting that we abolish LE, so you can get part of that action too.

Fact of the matter, if you want to phrase it that way, it is true "some animals are more equal than others."
I'm pretty sure you can't tap phone lines, use chemical agents to do hair, wage war against a foreign nation, negotiate with foreign govts, fly a commercial airliner, transport nuclear material, filibuster a congressional bill, keep a cadaver in your basement to dissect, sit in black robes and pass judgment on legal cases, or get up from gallery in courtroom, and sit in the jury box and vote on guilt or innocence.

So let's abolish them all, since you feel like you're missing out, and let you get in on the fun.



You won't ever get me to believe that the founders, upon the drafting of the Constitution thought.... "everybody should have guns everywhere they should go, and to hell with the tyrants who would disarm us as we entered a prison."
But I digress... you think prisoners having access to firearms is the only issue? How about the guys coming into the prison WITH the firearms???? It's not exactly unknown for people to try to shoot their way into places to free someone being detained.



The people did. You've paid, for:
My first uniform - and no I wouldn't let you try it on
F16s - and no I doubt they'll let you take it for a spin
Roads - no, you can't have a family picnic in the middle of it during rush hour
Air Force One - No, you can't hitch a ride with the president
The Lincoln Memorial - no, you can paint it green
The White House - no you can't get a key and spend a night from time to time
The CDC - No, you can't get a sample of Ebola
M1A1s - no you can't have one to take your date to your HS reunion

Just because you paid for it (a portion) does not entitle you to universal access to use. How is that not common sense?

So much to work with here...

First, your arguments give the appearance of some lack of understanding of the balances behind delegated authority. Law enforcement done right is a delicate balance of having certain elements of authority as a tool of performing a public service without allowing it to become a position of arbitrary power. It all comes down to the understanding that it is the use of power that belongs to the citizens as delegated for certain purposes, and not power in and arbitrary or self-existent sense. Once it becomes that, you live in a totalitarian society, not a free republic. No, your building a straw man argument that if I don't agree with law enforcement approaching me with the attitude that I will comply because you're god and I'm not, that doesn't make me an anarchist or suggest that I would eliminate law enforcement completely. As Bill pointed out, there is no defensible reason why a non-criminal should be forced to travel unarmed by virtue of being in the general geographic location of a detention facility. If we are paying for the building, there is not reason why a reasonable accommodation cannot be made for the exercise of a CONSTITUTION RIGHT, not what makes your tummy feel good, but a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Second, the founders leave me with the impression that if they meant what you believe they do, then the Second Amendment would have said so, or at least there would be some historical record of that as a prevailing opinion.

Third, given that we have some wonderful inventions for providing a safe disarming area like bulletproof glass, it would not be terribly difficult to establish a metal detector and disarming room in the entry path to a facility. As it is now, a person could walk in armed and attack several staff and most of the administration in many facilities before encountering a hardened entry into the core facility. As demonstrated in the construction of may newer county jails, it is entirely possible to keep visitors in an isolated environment in which they could effectively be prevented from unauthorized interaction with staff and inmate alike. The reason comes down to 'we don't feel like doing that'.

Fourth, I find it telling that you would reduce the argument to absurdities and the suggestion that sounds as if you are saying that if I don't accept law enforcement as overlords, then I obviously favor the complete abolition of law enforcement.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So much to work with here...

First, your arguments give the appearance of some lack of understanding of the balances behind delegated authority. Law enforcement done right is a delicate balance of having certain elements of authority as a tool of performing a public service without allowing it to become a position of arbitrary power. It all comes down to the understanding that it is the use of power that belongs to the citizens as delegated for certain purposes, and not power in and arbitrary or self-existent sense. Once it becomes that, you live in a totalitarian society, not a free republic. No, your building a straw man argument that if I don't agree with law enforcement approaching me with the attitude that I will comply because you're god and I'm not, that doesn't make me an anarchist or suggest that I would eliminate law enforcement completely. As Bill pointed out, there is no defensible reason why a non-criminal should be forced to travel unarmed by virtue of being in the general geographic location of a detention facility. If we are paying for the building, there is not reason why a reasonable accommodation cannot be made for the exercise of a CONSTITUTION RIGHT, not what makes your tummy feel good, but a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Constitutional rights are not ever, have not ever, and will not ever be absolute rights. If you believe they are, you are, no "ifs, ands, or buts," an ANARCHIST. I'm sorry that the restrictions placed on you leads you to believe that those in LE have some sort of divinity. If you wish to ascend, feel free to put in you app.
I don't believe you should have the right to carry in a secure facility. It's moot point though, because that will never change.

Second, the founders leave me with the impression that if they meant what you believe they do, then the Second Amendment would have said so, or at least there would be some historical record of that as a prevailing opinion.

Like the RKBA? So the Second Amendment states explicitly what it means? Then where's the exception for slaves, prisoners, free blacks, or those who refused to swear allegiance? All of these existed during the times of the Founders, and these exceptions were widely applied. Care to recite the exact text of the Second Amendment for me.... I seem to have overlooked the exceptions that are apparently in there, because as you said, the Founders would have said so, right?

Third, given that we have some wonderful inventions for providing a safe disarming area like bulletproof glass, it would not be terribly difficult to establish a metal detector and disarming room in the entry path to a facility. As it is now, a person could walk in armed and attack several staff and most of the administration in many facilities before encountering a hardened entry into the core facility. As demonstrated in the construction of may newer county jails, it is entirely possible to keep visitors in an isolated environment in which they could effectively be prevented from unauthorized interaction with staff and inmate alike. The reason comes down to 'we don't feel like doing that'.

Fourth, I find it telling that you would reduce the argument to absurdities and the suggestion that sounds as if you are saying that if I don't accept law enforcement as overlords, then I obviously favor the complete abolition of law enforcement.

Why in the world would you have a metal detector or disarming room??? I thought your whole point was that you shouldn't be disarmed. Is it, or is it not? Or is it ok, to be disarmed from 30ft away rather than 300ft? Where's your consistency? Either you get to hobnob with criminals, open carrying and high fiving, or not. Make up you mind. If you want the Constitution to be black and white, let it be black and white. Don't insert slivers of gray whenever you feel like it. Your argument if flawed because you aren't consistent and obviously aren't that well versed in the practices of the founders following the adoption of the Constitution. If you're going make your stand on the Constitution, specifically the BoRs as being absolute in their interpretation, and ease of understanding, despite an ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT created to interpret said document, you should be way more consistent than you currently are.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Constitutional rights are not ever, have not ever, and will not ever be absolute rights. If you believe they are, you are, no "ifs, ands, or buts," an ANARCHIST. I'm sorry that the restrictions placed on you leads you to believe that those in LE have some sort of divinity. If you wish to ascend, feel free to put in you app.
I don't believe you should have the right to carry in a secure facility. It's moot point though, because that will never change.



Like the RKBA? So the Second Amendment states explicitly what it means? Then where's the exception for slaves, prisoners, free blacks, or those who refused to swear allegiance? All of these existed during the times of the Founders, and these exceptions were widely applied. Care to recite the exact text of the Second Amendment for me.... I seem to have overlooked the exceptions that are apparently in there, because as you said, the Founders would have said so, right?



Why in the world would you have a metal detector or disarming room??? I thought your whole point was that you shouldn't be disarmed. Is it, or is it not? Or is it ok, to be disarmed from 30ft away rather than 300ft? Where's your consistency? Either you get to hobnob with criminals, open carrying and high fiving, or not. Make up you mind. If you want the Constitution to be black and white, let it be black and white. Don't insert slivers of gray whenever you feel like it. Your argument if flawed because you aren't consistent and obviously aren't that well versed in the practices of the founders following the adoption of the Constitution. If you're going make your stand on the Constitution, specifically the BoRs as being absolute in their interpretation, and ease of understanding, despite an ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT created to interpret said document, you should be way more consistent than you currently are.

You either didn't pay attention to a damned thing I said or else you are willfully being intellectually dishonest. You are arguing against what you want me to have said and not what I actually said.

I accounted for disarming and going through a metal detector when one is going to be in direct contact with inmates, and not for 'visits' through glass or video monitors. I agree with Bill's point that it is unreasonable to require people to leave home and travel disarmed to appease the powers that be. The Constitution, as applied by our founders, applied to the citizens of the United States. The exception regarding slaves ended with abolition and the grant of citizenship by constitutional amendment, you know, that really cool thing they put near the end of the Constitution as originally written.

Oh, and the purpose of the court was to apply law and make sure it stood up to constitutional scrutiny, not to invent it or determine that the law or Constitution say WTF-ever they want it to say.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You either didn't pay attention to a damned thing I said or else you are willfully being intellectually dishonest. You are arguing against what you want me to have said and not what I actually said.

I accounted for disarming and going through a metal detector when one is going to be in direct contact with inmates, and not for 'visits' through glass or video monitors. I agree with Bill's point that it is unreasonable to require people to leave home and travel disarmed to appease the powers that be. The Constitution, as applied by our founders, applied to the citizens of the United States. The exception regarding slaves ended with abolition and the grant of citizenship by constitutional amendment, you know, that really cool thing they put near the end of the Constitution as originally written.

Oh, and the purpose of the court was to apply law and make sure it stood up to constitutional scrutiny, not to invent it or determine that the law or Constitution say WTF-ever they want it to say.

Lord have mercy. It's amazing how much coddling the American public needs these days. Call me crazy, off my rocker, of maybe I've fallen off the turnip wagon.... but when I want a prison constructed, I want it constructed FIRST to keep those designed to be there, IN there. I don't care a flip about making sure to design areas for the bleeding hearts that want space made available so they "express their 2nd Amendment rights." Next they'll be demand spaces, on property, where they can protest executions and "express their 1st Amendment rights." Sorry, govt isn't made to accommodate all of the public's wishes and whims.

 

[Coach]

No gun free zones. None.

No visitation for prison. Simple.

No gun free zones.

 

[Sylvain]

No gun free zones. None.

No visitation for prison. Simple.

No gun free zones.

What about the right to see a lawyer?

 

[Coach]

Sorry, govt isn't made to accommodate all of the public's wishes and whims.

The government gets its just power from the Consent of the Governed. We need to get back to the Consent of the governed. We have tried gun free zones and regulation out the ass. It is not working. Stop infringing on unalienable rights and let those of us with guns and skills solve this bull**** and lower the body count.

Largest mass murder in the nations history, other than the ones committed against the Indians, and it is the same ole bull**** but spouted from DC and nothing real is getting done.

 

[Coach]

What about the right to see a lawyer?

Let the lawyers be unarmed. Don't see a down side there.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lord have mercy. It's amazing how much coddling the American public needs these days. Call me crazy, off my rocker, of maybe I've fallen off the turnip wagon.... but when I want a prison constructed, I want it constructed FIRST to keep those designed to be there, IN there. I don't care a flip about making sure to design areas for the bleeding hearts that want space made available so they "express their 2nd Amendment rights." Next they'll be demand spaces, on property, where they can protest executions and "express their 1st Amendment rights." Sorry, govt isn't made to accommodate all of the public's wishes and whims.

Thank you for proving my point. People in positions of authority who have contempt for constitutional rights are dangerous to the republic and the substance from which public masters are made. I am disappointed that you are apparently an example of this type of person.

As for the immediate issue, there is no reason why the safety and security of a correctional facility and the rights of non-inmates cannot both be honored. As a matter of fact, I can assure you that it can be done. If you consider respecting the Constitution you are sworn to uphold to be an unnecessary bother, then you are in the wrong line of work.

No gun free zones. None.

No visitation for prison. Simple.

No gun free zones.

I will go 2 out of 3 with you. Visits are important to the public well-being so far as without them we would loose one of the few vehicles for internal misdeeds becoming known outside the fence. Also, it wouldn't fly politically given that those most affected would be children and non-criminal family members.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thank you for proving my point. People in positions of authority who have contempt for constitutional rights are dangerous to the republic and the substance from which public masters are made. I am disappointed that you are apparently an example of this type of person.

As for the immediate issue, there is no reason why the safety and security of a correctional facility and the rights of non-inmates cannot both be honored. As a matter of fact, I can assure you that it can be done. If you consider respecting the Constitution you are sworn to uphold to be an unnecessary bother, then you are in the wrong line of work.



I will go 2 out of 3 with you. Visits are important to the public well-being so far as without them we would loose one of the few vehicles for internal misdeeds becoming known outside the fence. Also, it wouldn't fly politically given that those most affected would be children and non-criminal family members.

Anyone who thinks constitutional rights are absolute, haven't the slightest understand of said document. I am thankful, your outlook is fringe. It's fringe because you focus on ONE single right, and ignore the others, as if there is some hierarchy of rights. I imagine that in order to be consistent, you probably believe citizens should be allowed walk on military posts and demonstrate on runways about "flying death machines." Or maybe you're a supporter of the Occupy Movement, and believe in the absolute right to assemble wherever one desires, as long as it's not privately held personal property. If you don't then you're a hypocrite. The Constitution wasn't written in crayon. It's an intelligent document which also is practical. You can sit at home and live out your anarchist dream, but when you step outside you enter the real world. I suggest you put more time and effort in studying the Constitution, besides simple focusing on the 2nd, and expecting that the rest of the document takes a back seat to that.

Kut (is tired of "only the second amendment matters" argument)

 

[IndyDave1776]

Anyone who thinks constitutional rights are absolute, haven't the slightest understand of said document. I am thankful, your outlook is fringe. It's fringe because you focus on ONE single right, and ignore the others, as if there is some hierarchy of rights. I imagine that in order to be consistent, you probably believe citizens should be allowed walk on military posts and demonstrate on runways about "flying death machines." Or maybe you're a supporter of the Occupy Movement, and believe in the absolute right to assemble wherever one desires, as long as it's not privately held personal property. If you don't then you're a hypocrite. The Constitution wasn't written in crayon. It's an intelligent document which also is practical. You can sit at home and live out your anarchist dream, but when you step outside you enter the real world. I suggest you put more time and effort in studying the Constitution, besides simple focusing on the 2nd, and expecting that the rest of the document takes a back seat to that.

Kut (is tired of "only the second amendment matters" argument)

What the f**k? As many characters on the screen as I have spilled on a wide variety of issues including the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments you are accusing me of being a one-issue fringe person? Besides which, don't you think that discussions on a GUN forum would go heavy on guns?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What the f**k? As many characters on the screen as I have spilled on a wide variety of issues including the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments you are accusing me of being a one-issue fringe person? Besides which, don't you think that discussions on a GUN forum would go heavy on guns?

Yeah, I am

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, I am

That is as sensible as the feds being 'unable' to establish the Orlando killer's motive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is as sensible as the feds being 'unable' to establish the Orlando killer's motive.

Ok, tell me what other rights you'd like to add into prison access?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok, tell me what other rights you'd like to add into prison access?

OK, so you are effectively changing your statement from a general one to one specific to this topic? What other rights of non-criminals is being interfered with in this instance? Keeping in mind that those who are affected are being forced to leave home unarmed without any other alternative available to them, they aren't getting their vocal cords cut out, their scriptures confiscated, or subjected to self-incrimination, now are they? Just because I didn't specifically address the quartering of troops that doesn't mean that I condone it. In our history, to the best of my knowledge it has not been attempted (some appropriation of real estate during the Civil War notwithstanding), so there really isn't any point in bothering with the issue.

 

[Kutnupe14]

OK, so you are effectively changing your statement from a general one to one specific to this topic? What other rights of non-criminals is being interfered with in this instance? Keeping in mind that those who are affected are being forced to leave home unarmed without any other alternative available to them, they aren't getting their vocal cords cut out, their scriptures confiscated, or subjected to self-incrimination, now are they? Just because I didn't specifically address the quartering of troops that doesn't mean that I condone it. In our history, to the best of my knowledge it has not been attempted (some appropriation of real estate during the Civil War notwithstanding), so there really isn't any point in bothering with the issue.

What about the other rights?

 

[IndyDave1776]

What about the other rights?

I am not playing stupid games with you and your straw men. You will notice the conspicuous absence of any complaint on my part regarding secure areas so long as they exist for a defensible reason and appropriate accommodations are made such as not to affect proper persons from the minute they step out their own front doors. Not allowing some of the asinine examples you mentioned is entirely different from effectively controlling what people do that have little or nothing to do with necessary security.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am not playing stupid games with you and your straw men. You will notice the conspicuous absence of any complaint on my part regarding secure areas so long as they exist for a defensible reason and appropriate accommodations are made such as not to affect proper persons from the minute they step out their own front doors. Not allowing some of the asinine examples you mentioned is entirely different from effectively controlling what people do that have little or nothing to do with necessary security.

So you can't think of any other rights you'd like prisons and jails to observe for your convenience? Surely you're not short sighted. Why not abolish secure areas, and let people have the run of the place?