I wonder...

[Kythas]

what part of "shall not be infringed" they don't understand?

[Shinesintx]

Where is it?

[stroguy]

Do you have a problem with the SS not allowing weapons in The White House? It's the law, I see that sign everyday at work. I have no problem because I understand the intent.

[Kythas]

Where is it?

That was at the St. Louis Arch. My girlfriend and I stopped there on the way back from Chicago on Thursday.

[Kythas]

Do you have a problem with the SS not allowing weapons in The White House? It's the law, I see that sign everyday at work. I have no problem because I understand the intent.

My point is this: The Constitution was very clear on this point. It states "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is very strong legal language. It doesn't state "...shall not be infringed except in certain circumstances."

I also understand the intent, especially in the White House. However, a blanket ban over any and all Federal facilities, to include the Post Office? If we're fighting to allow Post Office carry, how is that any different than the St. Louis Arch where this picture was taken? Prohibiting weapons at the White House is to protect the person and Office of the President, of whom enemies exist both foreign and domestic. That danger doesn't exist in general Federal facilities, though.

[n5wd]

Prohibiting weapons at the White House is to protect the person and Office of the President, of whom enemies exist both foreign and domestic. That danger doesn't exist in general Federal facilities, though.

The folks who were in and around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City might disagree with you on that.

Hopefully, the folks who are suing the Postal Service will change that agency's blanket refusal to allow weapons in the public area of the post office.
National Parks used to be prohibited, but now mirror the state's laws... so, IMHO it's getting better.

[srothstein]

Do you have a problem with the SS not allowing weapons in The White House? It's the law, I see that sign everyday at work. I have no problem because I understand the intent.

My point is this: The Constitution was very clear on this point. It states "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is very strong legal language. It doesn't state "...shall not be infringed except in certain circumstances."

This is my problem with the law and the policy. I fully understand the security aspects of what I am saying, and i see it as the old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

I do not believe that the gun ban provides actual security, in the White House, Texas Capital, or any other governmental office. It does provide a false sense of security because the security officers and the protected person begin to rely on the policy as a first step and we all know criminals do not obey these policies. Stopping honest citizens from carrying does not improve security.

[TLE2]

The folks who were in and around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City might disagree with you on that.

OKC is a bad example and it hurts a bit that you would use it. They drove a car loaded with fuel oil and fertilizer into the parking garage next to the building. I doubt that they paid attention to any "no weapons" postings. The children and adults that died in that explosion were not protected by any sign and wouldn't have been, if it had been present.

Weapons are not prohibited by laws, they are only stopped by invasive and thorough search, metal detectors and vigilant personnel.

That is the final idiocy of such postings. A "weapons prohibited" posting only keeps law abiding citizens from carrying in such premises. They do nothing to prohibit criminals from doing so, since criminals, by their very nature, do not obey the law.

However, being a law abiding citizen, I obey such postings.

[Oldgringo]

The Gateway Arch is a National Park thinghy and we are not allowed to carry in Federal structures. You are allowed to get boogered in the parking areas and anywhere along the river front.

[Oldgringo]

Do you have a problem with the SS not allowing weapons in The White House? It's the law, I see that sign everyday at work. I have no problem because I understand the intent.

Is that where you draw your pay? Just askin...

[Lambda Force]

I do not believe that the gun ban provides actual security, in the White House, Texas Capital, or any other governmental office. It does provide a false sense of security because the security officers and the protected person begin to rely on the policy as a first step and we all know criminals do not obey these policies. Stopping honest citizens from carrying does not improve security.

That's true. It's funny that the groups that support ineffective gun bans would be shocked and offended if somebody suggested bans on certain religious or ethnic groups, even if those bans were more effective. That proves it's not about safety, it's about controlling the honest citizens.

If someone suggests government bans on certain guns, or certain religions, their opposition to the constitution is duly noted.

[Oldgringo]

I do not believe that the gun ban provides actual security, in the White House, Texas Capital, or any other governmental office. It does provide a false sense of security because the security officers and the protected person begin to rely on the policy as a first step and we all know criminals do not obey these policies. Stopping honest citizens from carrying does not improve security.

That's true. It's funny that the groups that support ineffective gun bans would be shocked and offended if somebody suggested bans on certain religious or ethnic groups, even if those bans were more effective. That proves it's not about safety, it's about controlling the honest citizens.

If someone suggests government bans on certain guns, or certain religions, their opposition to the constitution is duly noted.

It is said that locks only keep out "honest" people...or something like that.