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

[Kutnupe14]

The 9th Amendment. Hamilton had brought up the point that with the addition of the BoRs, it could be reasoned that those enumerated rights, were the only ones worthy of protection, and that the others would be given a second tier status.

I will point out, that when I asked repeatedly about OTHER rights, outside of the Second, no one offered, not once any other rights other than those contained in the BoRs. No one thought outside the box, they focused solely on the enumerated.

The 9th, a commonly overlooked amendment, makes crystal clear that there are other rights beside those listed in the Constitution, that are held on an EQUAL footing as those enumerated. So what are these rights, and how many are there? I'd say there are FAR more than small list we are given, and which have been SOLELY cited by others in this thread.

 

[2A_Tom]

Kut, why shouldn't a licensed gun owner not be allowed to lock his weapon in their vehicle outside a prison, just like I have to do at the Lake County courthouse?

Why can't I leave my handgun in my car at thr Post Office? I have to park across the street and cross four lanes on the rare occasion I need to go there. The PO isn't even a part of the Federal Gvt. anymore. Back in the day when the PO was full of money and expensive goods they were raided by Bonnie, Clyde, Ma and Dillinger. During the 70's there was a rash of employees going "postal". I can't for the life of me imagine why legal citizens are not allowed to carri there.

Gun free zones really made life safer in Newtown, Orlando, Columbine, Luby's, Aurora et al. I can certainly see why you would support them. All you special citizens get to walk around for hours, in your tactical garb with tour AR's and M4's strapped on in front of the TV cameras, when the shooter has been dead for hours.

Blue, because that is an agregious infringement. You probably disagree.

As for the 18th century meaning of well regulated you have seen it discussed here as often as I have. You need to squeez that angle below 90 deg.

Please read this: J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[Kutnupe14]

The question at hand, is whether those rights are any less deserving of respect than the others. The inclusion of of the 9th Amendment makes that a clear no.

So, it begs the question, should the government make accommodations for ALL of these rights, both enumerated and non? It IS a right to procreate. It IS a right to choose those who would represent you. It IS a right to travel freely. It IS a right to have privacy. That's only a small sample, the list can go on, and on, and on. So I repeat the question, is govt to make accommodations for ALL rights? Were the Founders absolutists without an understanding of practicality? Or in layman's terms, had "book, but no common sense?" Common sense tells me, that the wheels of govt would grind to a halt, if persons were able to demand, and receive observance of their NUMEROUS rights, in any place govt does business. It's an asinine proposal.

As far as carrying firearms in places such as prisons, I am firmly against such ridiculous notions, as I am against providing rooms, in the prison, for visitors to "procreate."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, why shouldn't a licensed gun owner not be allowed to lock his weapon in their vehicle outside a prison, just like I have to do at the Lake County courthouse?

Why can't I leave my handgun in my car at thr Post Office? I have to park across the street and cross four lanes on the rare occasion I need to go there. The PO isn't even a part of the Federal Gvt. anymore. Back in the day when the PO was full of money and expensive goods they were raided by Bonnie, Clyde, Ma and Dillinger. During the 70's there was a rash of employees going "postal". I can't for the life of me imagine why legal citizens are not allowed to carri there.

Gun free zones really made life safer in Newtown, Orlando, Columbine, Luby's, Aurora et al. I can certainly see why you would support them. All you special citizens get to walk around for hours, in your tactical garb with tour AR's and M4's strapped on in front of the TV cameras, when the shooter has been dead for hours.

Blue, because that is an agregious infringement. You probably disagree.

As for the 18th century meaning of well regulated you have seen it discussed here as often as I have. You need to squeez that angle below 90 deg.

Please read this: J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

I will admit, I am being personally difficult because of the concerted attempt to move the goalposts. Since I'm being honest, how about some reciprocity? I said there are places where it is perfectly acceptable to not allow firearms, and then I offered a prison as an example. Was anybody under the assumption that I didn't mean "inside" the prison? Seriously?
In truth, I have no issue with persons keeping their firearms in their vehicles at prison lots, and there shouldn't be any prohibition against carrying IN a post office let alone the parking lot. But inside... a prison, a jail, a courtroom, the White House? I firmly oppose.

 

[2A_Tom]

The question at hand, is whether those rights are any less deserving of respect than the others. The inclusion of of the 9th Amendment makes that a clear no.

So, it begs the question, should the government make accommodations for ALL of these rights, both enumerated and non? It IS a right to procreate. It IS a right to choose those who would represent you. It IS a right to travel freely. It IS a right to have privacy. That's only a small sample, the list can go on, and on, and on. So I repeat the question, is govt to make accommodations for ALL rights? We're the Founders absolutists without an understanding of practicality? Or in layman's terms, had "book, but no common sense?" Common sense tells me, that the wheels of govt would grind to a halt, if persons were able to demand, and receive observance of their NUMEROUS rights, in any place govt does business. It's an asinine proposal.

As far as carrying firearms in places such as prisons, I am firmly against such ridiculous notions, as I am against providing rooms, in the prison, for visitors to "procreate."

The wheels of Govt. will grind us to dust if we let them.

So you havn't heard of conjugal visits?

 

[Woobie]

The question at hand, is whether those rights are any less deserving of respect than the others. The inclusion of of the 9th Amendment makes that a clear no.

So, it begs the question, should the government make accommodations for ALL of these rights, both enumerated and non? It IS a right to procreate. It IS a right to choose those who would represent you. It IS a right to travel freely. It IS a right to have privacy. That's only a small sample, the list can go on, and on, and on. So I repeat the question, is govt to make accommodations for ALL rights? We're the Founders absolutists without an understanding of practicality? Or in layman's terms, had "book, but no common sense?" Common sense tells me, that the wheels of govt would grind to a halt, if persons were able to demand, and receive observance of their NUMEROUS rights, in any place govt does business. It's an asinine proposal.

As far as carrying firearms in places such as prisons, I am firmly against such ridiculous notions, as I am against providing rooms, in the prison, for visitors to "procreate."

I see what you're saying. But I will point out that the founders thought certain rights important enough as to be worthy of explicit enumeration, just in case. As it turns out, that was a pretty good idea.

 

[Woobie]

I will admit, I am being personally difficult because of the concerted attempt to move the goalposts. Since I'm being honest, how about some reciprocity? I said there are places where it is perfectly acceptable to not allow firearms, and then I offered a prison as an example. Was anybody under the assumption that I didn't mean "inside" the prison? Seriously?
In truth, I have no issue with persons keeping their firearms in their vehicles at prison lots, and there shouldn't be any prohibition against carrying IN a post office let alone the parking lot. But inside... a prison, a jail, a courtroom, the White House? I firmly oppose.

I think we see things the same way in your listed examples.

You probably knew this, but up to and including Lincoln's presidency, random people could walk in off the streets and straight into the WH to meet the President. People would actually sleep on the couches. Follow on events would of course show that this was less than prudent, but at the time it was normal. Times have certainly changed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see what you're saying. But I will point out that the founders thought certain rights important enough as to be worthy of explicit enumeration, just in case. As it turns out, that was a pretty good idea.

"Some" of the founders. There are legendary names that opposed the inclusion of the BoRs.

I think it's a fair bet that had others been listed, people would oppose government overreach just as fiercely (i.e. freedom to travel)

 

[Woobie]

"Some" of the founders. There are legendary names that opposed the inclusion of the BoRs.

I think it's a fair bet that had others been listed, people would oppose government overreach just as fiercely (i.e. freedom to travel)

I'm sure you're right. But the 2A made it in there, and that, thankfully, is our reality.

 

[2A_Tom]

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.

Going back to the beginning, I don't see where your contention that this thread is about more thanthe 2A.

Bill called you on your statement.

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

You threw a bunch of straw men in the mix to obfuscate the discussion.

I will graciously bow out to avoide an argument. Have a blessed day.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Going back to the beginning, I don't see where your contention that this thread is about more thanthe 2A.

Bill called you on your statement.



You threw a bunch of straw men in the mix to obfuscate the discussion.

I will graciously bow out to avoide an argument. Have a blessed day.

You obviously don't know what a strawman is. I have supported my "weak" argument with examples, and historical reasoning. Don't ride a one trick pony. If you can't connect the dots as to why it is reasonable to compare one right to another, "apples to apples," then this discussion is above your pay grade, or you simply don't respect other rights.

Kut (wonders why people cite fallacies they don't understand)

 

[Double T]

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

Prison or jail.

/end thread

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well perhaps ill have this discussion by myself.
None, there were no amendments to the Constitution, originally, hence why the BoRs are called "amendments." So that begs the question were the founders ignorant of the concept of rights until just prior of the addition of the BoRs? I think I can safely say, without any opposition, no.

So why were the BoRs added?

Since you insist on going down this road, you apparently skipped out the day that history class covered the opposition to the BoR. Alexander Hamilton was the most prominent opponent, and his opposition was not based on ignorance nor a belief that citizens should not have those protections but rather that ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS PROHIBITED IN THE BOR, THEREFORE MAKING THEM SUPERFLUOUS AND REDUNDANT IN NATURE. Unfortunately, Hamilton expected the government to actually live within the authority is it granted and was very wrong about that. Others were more insightful of human nature.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You obviously don't know what a strawman is. I have supported my "weak" argument with examples, and historical reasoning. Don't ride a one trick pony. If you can't connect the dots as to why it is reasonable to compare one right to another, "apples to apples," then this discussion is above your pay grade, or you simply don't respect other rights.

Kut (wonders why people cite fallacies they don't understand)

Can you not wrap your head around the idea that we are discussion one right because it is the only one in which the rights of free citizens are being adversely affected by the situation under consideration?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since you insist on going down this road, you apparently skipped out the day that history class covered the opposition to the BoR. Alexander Hamilton was the most prominent opponent, and his opposition was not based on ignorance nor a belief that citizens should not have those protections but rather that ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS PROHIBITED IN THE BOR, THEREFORE MAKING THEM SUPERFLUOUS AND REDUNDANT IN NATURE. Unfortunately, Hamilton expected the government to actually live within the authority is it granted and was very wrong about that. Others were more insightful of human nature.

I doubt I missed it. More than likely, I was probably teaching it....
So, I still see you're riding that one trick pony into anarchy land eh? I'm sorry that you don't understand that rights extend well beyond those enumerated as the Bill of Rights. And now, you're straying, unwittingly I'm sure, into original intent. In which the BoRs (and let's not forget the rest) held no power over state governments, only federal (obviously prior to incorporation).

You can anarchy all you want "up in here." You can complain til blue in the face about how rights are absolute. However, you can't show me.... now, or then, that such has ever been the case, and observed as such. Even by the men who actually drafted the Constitution. Or can you? It's nice to live skipping through dandelion fields, plucking clouds made of cotton candy, and trying to find a Shaolin Monk's balance in the universe. Unfortunately the word does not, and has not ever worked this way. If you think the Founders believed in the absolutism of rights against all facets of government, then I would label them as simpletons. However, their actions prove otherwise. And man's intent is much clearer in actions rather than words.

Kut (isn't con'd by fairytales)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can you not wrap your head around the idea that we are discussion one right because it is the only one in which the rights of free citizens are being adversely affected by the situation under consideration?

No, I can't. I can't extricate one right without potentially considering all. You have no right to carry a firearm in a prison as you deem acceptable to you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I can't. I can't extricate one right without potentially considering all. You have no right to carry a firearm in a prison as you deem acceptable to you.

When you stop someone for speeding, do you follow up with full investigations for child molesting, bank robbery, and tax evasion? I am guessing probably not, because none of those are relevant to the problem at issue. So then why should we address the potential threat of having troops quartered in our homes or our freedom of religion infringed while visiting that family member we would want to shape up his act?

 

[Kutnupe14]

When you stop someone for speeding, do you follow up with full investigations for child molesting, bank robbery, and tax evasion? I am guessing probably not, because none of those are relevant to the problem at issue. So then why should we address the potential threat of having troops quartered in our homes or our freedom of religion while visiting that family member we would want to shape up his act?

If you were so interested in shaping up that family member, you'd probably should've been more proactive before they got to the point of being imprisoned. Now that they are in prison, don't expect govt to make accommodations now that his plight is a pet project.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Kut,

You finally acknowledged that you were being intentionally difficult. Thank you for that; I appreciate the fact that your stated intent was to make a point-you almost had me convinced that you really believed all of that, and I know you're not so far gone into statism to think that the gov't has all the answers.
Ok, so your contention is that we place the 2A above all the others in importance. I know you're familiar with the fact that, absent that safeguard, we would have had by this point tyrants that would make Stalin look tame. Let's put that aside, though, and simply reiterate that this forum exists to address the interests of gun owners, specifically, Indiana gun owners. That being the common thread among us all, yes, that's going to be our focus. Is it of greater Constitutional importance? Other than w/r/t the point of the false "Liberty's Teeth" quote, no. You raised the example of the prison. If you look back over my post history, you'll find that I've several times said that in areas where inmates are housed, to include the forensic mentally ill, guns (and other weapons) should be proscribed, and yes, the reason is to keep them away from those to whom due process of law has been applied and their exercise of their rights of life, liberty, and/or property have been limited.
My issue, as raised early in the discussion, is that under present law, people who have not even been suspected, let alone accused of found guilty of any criminal act, are also made defenseless. I offered a suggestion to make the GFZ (where the inmates are) secure while still respecting the rights of the free.
I also proposed that if the free people are for some reason made thus defenseless, they should be mandatorily protected from those who would do them harm. I further set a high price on failure, but it's the same price as the person pays who is put at risk, should a threat present itself. My point, poorly stated, was that without that high bar of expectation in place, someone doing that job might not take it as seriously as the person threatened would. When your own life is on the line, you tend to care more.

Some state capitols, as I showed, also conduct the business of government without the people who employ them being made defenseless. Some counties right here in Indiana do likewise with their courthouses. Why, then, must other gov't officials deny protection/self-defense to their citizens while the citizens are forced to pay for their protection details?

I am of the opinion that if they can be either armed or protected by people who are, we should have the same right. To do otherwise effectively (but not literally) creates a class of nobility, and I recall those as being prohibited.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[youngda9]

Hey another guy focused on a single right. Care to address some other rights?
Oh, and one other nugget I'll throw in. Therere is limit within the text of the second amendment. "Well Regulated," if that wasn't intended as a limit, why include it at all?

Kut (waits for the various definitions of "well regulated."

If you read some writings from the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights...like the Federalist papers (you wouldn't have any questions if you digested that), you would understand that "regulated" meant "equipped" and/or "trained" do function as a unit. Kinda like people have a well regulated clock...something that works as it should. Local militias, based on the able bodied men townspeople, TRAINED for battle. SO the comment "well regulated" meant equipped (with weapons of war) and trained (in the methods of war).

Same thing said a different way:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Like the phrase "a well regulated clock"...certainly that isn't subject to government regulations. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

And in case you still don't understand...again:
In 21st century plain speaking, the 'well-regulated' term circa 1787 when the Constitution was drafted meant, as the case may be, that which is 'adequate,' 'sufficient.' or 'in the proper form' for its intended purpose. Intended purpose was the defense of individuals first, their homes and property second, and then their neighbors and neighborhoods working toward common purpose. From there, the scale may grow but the principle remains the same; a home guard for threats that are near and citizen soldiers to deal with external threats. Also misinterpreted by the foes of the second amendment is a term that hasn't changed: "... shall not be infringed."