Can We Agree to Ban GFZ's?

This is a discussion on Can We Agree to Ban GFZ's? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Washington Times published Ted Nugent's open letter to Joe Biden addressing the veep's role in President Obama's task force on gun violence in the ...

View Poll Results: Which Statement Best Describes Your Opinion of a Federal Ban of Gun-Free Zones?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ban GFZ's - modern killing fields. Where I have a legal right to be, my right to bear arms for self defense defense trumps any facility-wide weapons ban.

    51 63.75%
  • Ban GFZ's except in legally authorized secure areas with adequate and trained staffing.

    29 36.25%
  • Keep GFZ's. The best consideration of security is unique to each site. And, besides, property rights trump government preemptions on gun busting postings.

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Can We Agree to Ban GFZ's?

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043

    Can We Agree to Ban GFZ's?

    The Washington Times published Ted Nugent's open letter to Joe Biden addressing the veep's role in President Obama's task force on gun violence in the wake of the Newtown rampage, running here. Here is a link to Uncle Ted's letter.
    Nugent, "implores" Biden "to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately."
    Our forum membership has argued the merits of such a ban. Without further discussion that may bias the poll, I ask for your opinion and thoughts.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,996
    My vote is YES. "Gun Free Zones" are a microcosm of gun control itself, with the same devastating results. So where have there been mass shootings in recent memory?

    Schools - Yep
    Malls - Check
    Military Bases - Uh-huh
    Churches - Ditto

    Police Stations - Nope
    Gun Shows - Nada
    Ranges - Nah (except suicides)

    So I vote with a resounding YES.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    I believe Uncle Ted hit the nail on the head. I'd support that 100%. I'd ask that we look into some kind of tax breaks for gun safe purchases as well, as this may help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, like the shooter in Connecticut. I need another gun safe, and if the fed wants to help me buy it, I'm all for it. :)
    remington79 likes this.
    " But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,045
    As long as we aren't talking about violating private property owners' rights, then I agree that GFZs are generally a bad idea.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  6. #5
    Member Array shadow247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Hampton Roads, VA
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    As long as we aren't talking about violating private property owners' rights, then I agree that GFZs are generally a bad idea.
    I agree. What needs to happen is that civil liability needs to come into play for those who choose to not allow firearms on their property, should something happen. I get the whole, "you are free to not frequent that establishment", but the bottom line is that if you won't allow me to protect myself on your property, YOU become responsible for my safety. Simply posting a "No-Guns Allowed" sign doesn't really prevent a determined criminal. How many banks have been robbed while having the "No Guns Allowed" sign prominently posted on the front door?
    oakchas likes this.
    Truth is treason in an empire of lies - Ron Paul
    No b@stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b@stard die for his country. - General George S. Patton

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    I voted to ban with the understanding that we are only talking government-enforced GFZs. If it's private property, then the property owner rightly decides to have whatever rules they want. As far as I'm concerned, government has no rights, and thus no right to make anything "gun-free" by its decree.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043
    "Responsibility" pales to "response ability".
    sdprof likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  9. #8
    Member Array ElkSniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    I voted to ban with the understanding that we are only talking government-enforced GFZs. If it's private property, then the property owner rightly decides to have whatever rules they want. As far as I'm concerned, government has no rights, and thus no right to make anything "gun-free" by its decree.
    ^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^

    My first though when reading the poll options was that it was poorly worded in that it was mixing up private property with public property. There is a vast difference between the two.
    oakchas likes this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    I voted to ban with the understanding that we are only talking government-enforced GFZs. If it's private property, then the property owner rightly decides to have whatever rules they want. As far as I'm concerned, government has no rights, and thus no right to make anything "gun-free" by its decree.
    I totally agree with the exclusion of any private property. However I do realize and accept that all "government" cannot be open to weapons. Facilities of incarceration and court houses would be valid examples where there is a distinct need for a total prohibition of weapons. In the DMV, not so much.
    oakchas likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow247 View Post
    I agree. What needs to happen is that civil liability needs to come into play for those who choose to not allow firearms on their property, should something happen. I get the whole, "you are free to not frequent that establishment", but the bottom line is that if you won't allow me to protect myself on your property, YOU become responsible for my safety. Simply posting a "No-Guns Allowed" sign doesn't really prevent a determined criminal. How many banks have been robbed while having the "No Guns Allowed" sign prominently posted on the front door?
    Not going to happen. I can't say I agree with it, either.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,906
    If its a private home then its the home owners decision but it should be posted. If its a privately owned but public area like stores malls etc then different regs apply for everything else so I dont think gun free zones should be able to be established in privately owned but public areas such as those.
    phreddy and sdprof like this.

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,257
    Your poll is full of loaded language.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow247 View Post
    I agree. What needs to happen is that civil liability needs to come into play for those who choose to not allow firearms on their property, should something happen. I get the whole, "you are free to not frequent that establishment", but the bottom line is that if you won't allow me to protect myself on your property, YOU become responsible for my safety. Simply posting a "No-Guns Allowed" sign doesn't really prevent a determined criminal. How many banks have been robbed while having the "No Guns Allowed" sign prominently posted on the front door?
    Ummm, no. The real bottom line is if you don't like the property rules, don't come on the property. When you are forced, and I do mean physically forced, onto someone's property, then you can require that they take responsibility for your safety. Otherwise it's your free will. Use it.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,692
    Hummm. ironic from the comments..... in Kansas, you cannot post your home, there is no provision for private homes to post.

    I don't necessarily agree with the private property argument, if you are implying privately owned public businesses.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Your poll is full of loaded language.
    I'm trying to reflect the sentence about banning GFZ's from the source letter. You have a free slate. Your words expressing how and why you believe as you do are more valuable than the what you believe, in answering the poll, which is, in itself anonymous. It's anonymous because I want your true opinion. If you want to comment, please do.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb marion county property appraiser

,

powered by mybb self injury

Click on a term to search for related topics.