Gun Free Zones - What's the point?
- Thread starter chief357onYouTube
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
You know, it isn't even discrimination against a citizen's rights in a legal sense when the "rights" are subject to the permission of the land owner (as clarified by various state and federal laws and rulings). That means your rights are limited (as held up by the Supreme Court) and that your rights do not supersede the rights of another. So unless otherwise stipulated by law, your "right" only means that it is okay with the government so long as it is okay with the proprietor of the premises. Many folks seem to forget this.
So a landowner disallowing gun carry may be discrimination, but it is without a rights violation (assuming all applicable laws are followed).
Because enslaving someone is a crime. We kind of fought a war with that as a major issue back in the 1860s. You can't enslave someone on your own property because you can't enslave anyone, anywhere, and the property owner's legal right to determine what goes on, on their property does not supersede that.
Just don't let them see your black belt!
I let 'em see my black belt, AND my black suspenders!
(and my black cane..
)One of the operative phrases describing this idea is "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.."
The law provides the framework we use to determine who's rights, about what, take precedence, and when.
Generally speaking, property owners rights, on their property, are given more weight than the rights of an individual on someone else's property.
I'll always respect private property rights, just as I wish mine to be observed. Even outside of the law as a courtesy.
Say, for example, a feller has a no guns allowed sign in an establishment, the local laws do not give the sign any legal weight, I will still respect the owner's wishes. Most likely I'll comply by not entering the premises. If it's something I have to do, I'll disarm.
Say, for example, a feller has a no guns allowed sign in an establishment, the local laws do not give the sign any legal weight, I will still respect the owner's wishes. Most likely I'll comply by not entering the premises. If it's something I have to do, I'll disarm.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Target can also have you removed if you take a bullhorn into their store and start some sort of peaceful protest about products made in China, transgender facilities, or anything else. No one cries about how the first amendment should allow you to walk around a store with a bullhorn and protest.
It is a real pain and I wish many would take their signs down, but it is our fault they stay up. Inability to organize boycotts.
It is a real pain and I wish many would take their signs down, but it is our fault they stay up. Inability to organize boycotts.
1. Accidental discharges due to carelessness;
2. Someone brandishing a firearm resulting from a heated argument or just showing it off to friends;
3. Someone pulling a gun out at a store asking the clerk "WHAT KIND OF BULLETS DOES THIS TAKE?"
4. Fear of non-gun owner patrons or workers being surrounded by gun carriers
5. Collateral damage done by overzealous, poorly trained, concealed carrier trying to stop a robbery in process
6. Increased insurance premiums.
Well, those are all I could come up with in 3 minutes.
sig-gunner
Inactive
Every single one of those things are risks pretty much no matter where we are; street, store, library or truck stop.
The point is, either we're responsible gun owners/carriers, and we advocate for gun rights, or we go the other way. I think those signs and gun free zones go the other way.
Last edited:
Ok, the world is dangerous.
It boils down to this: there's many risks in the world and people accept many of them.
Most will not accept risks from a socially unacceptable person. As a gun carrier, you are behaving in a socially unacceptable manner. Therefore you injuring or killing someone is preventable by limiting where you can carry your socially unacceptable firearm.
Not what you want to hear, but to some, owning a gun is the same as a hate crime.
It boils down to this: there's many risks in the world and people accept many of them.
Most will not accept risks from a socially unacceptable person. As a gun carrier, you are behaving in a socially unacceptable manner. Therefore you injuring or killing someone is preventable by limiting where you can carry your socially unacceptable firearm.
Not what you want to hear, but to some, owning a gun is the same as a hate crime.
sig-gunner
Inactive
Speak for yourself.
sig-gunner
Inactive
Oh I took your post to mean you were advocating that viewpoint. My bad.. sorry.
gun free zones what's the point
It is simple death by a thousand cuts.
It helps to establish in the minds of soccer moms etc that guns are evil things also.
The Proponents know there will never be such a thing as a weapon free, or violence free world. They don't care.
They do have the idea of persecute and punish all gun owners everywhere.
This is one step in several direction of their efforts.
Teach and Condition Children and Soccer Moms and Civic and Political Leaders, that guns are bad, and get some Gun Owners fined and jailed and a criminal record, to boot, and prevent them from ever having a firearm again.
It is about Socialism/Communism and control. There are several sayings by Stalin Himmler, Hitler, and Mao and so on that all amount to disarm the Natives first.
They don't want the Natives, Citizens, Cattle to have horns or guns so they might stop them from trampling them and our Republic.
It's the same thing all the way back to Alexander, and before.
It is simple death by a thousand cuts.
It helps to establish in the minds of soccer moms etc that guns are evil things also.
The Proponents know there will never be such a thing as a weapon free, or violence free world. They don't care.
They do have the idea of persecute and punish all gun owners everywhere.
This is one step in several direction of their efforts.
Teach and Condition Children and Soccer Moms and Civic and Political Leaders, that guns are bad, and get some Gun Owners fined and jailed and a criminal record, to boot, and prevent them from ever having a firearm again.
It is about Socialism/Communism and control. There are several sayings by Stalin Himmler, Hitler, and Mao and so on that all amount to disarm the Natives first.
They don't want the Natives, Citizens, Cattle to have horns or guns so they might stop them from trampling them and our Republic.
It's the same thing all the way back to Alexander, and before.
That may be the point, but the truth is that not every gun owner/carrier is responsible. We all know this. Heck, all you have to do is search for the numerous threads with themes like: "Idiot at the range..." "Stupid things people do at the range....", "Who has had a negligent discharge....", "Cop shot himself in the leg with classroom of children...."
As I've read through this thread, almost all of the responses to the OP's question want to argue against gun free zones. Rather than doing this, I decided to answer the OP's question from a non-gun person's perspective. I quickly listed out several reasons why a non-gun person might like the idea of gun free zones. The truth is, there is some legitimacy to this. If we, as advocates of 2A rights and gun rights don't recognize and understand legitimate concerns, then we are NOT directly and thoughtfully addressing those concerns.
We all hate when politicians are asked a question, but rather than answer the question they immediately go into advocacy mode to defend their position. I feel that's sort of what has happened here.
sig-gunner
Inactive
Never going to advocate for anything other than more safety training, with regard to so-called gun free zones.
Laws and "zones" don't stop gun crimes. Plain and simple.
Laws and "zones" don't stop gun crimes. Plain and simple.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The problem isn't the negligent discharge or the person who sweeps everyone at the range.
The problem is the person who wants to take a TV they bought three months ago and dropped when moving, and now wants to return it. Of course, Target isn't going to accept the return by policy, but if they strap a Glock on their hip they might be able to intimidate the 16 year old who picked up a few extra shifts over Christmas break into accepting it anyways.
Or the person sitting in Federal Court with three rows of family packing behind him.
The problem is the person who wants to take a TV they bought three months ago and dropped when moving, and now wants to return it. Of course, Target isn't going to accept the return by policy, but if they strap a Glock on their hip they might be able to intimidate the 16 year old who picked up a few extra shifts over Christmas break into accepting it anyways.
Or the person sitting in Federal Court with three rows of family packing behind him.
Double Naught Spy
New member
And private business owners are not trying to stop crimes with them. Plain and simple. But I do like how you acknowledged the risks posed...
In GFZs, those accident/negligence risks are reduced when law abiding, responsible citizens obey them. With that said, the risks are fairly minimal in the first place, but they are reduced with a GFZ, which is what the business owner is after.
The business owner can't control what goes on outside of the given business, only what goes on inside the given business. It is their business, their rules, unless otherwise stated by law.
Last edited: