• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices [W:76]

imyoda said:
Thank you for your sharing with us your personal opinion
Click to expand...

Its based on 40+ years of professional observation and dealing with the Bannite movement
 
imyoda said:
I have no ulterior message my friend.........But just wanted to highlight a "Common Sense" rule/law/regulation the SCOTUS saw no need to confirm/over turn a lower court decision...........In essence..............I am just the messenger.........

Personally, I find no problem with SCOTUS Heller decision..............but as far as the NRA...............that's another story
Click to expand...

So you make the statement, "it will go a long way..." But cannot explain why...other than, "well they said it was OK"....nice cave to hide in...:roll:
 
BretJ said:
So you make the statement, "it will go a long way..." But cannot explain why...other than, "well they said it was OK"....nice cave to hide in...:roll:
Click to expand...


The term nitpicking comes to mind
 
imyoda said:
You are correct but your argument/opinion is lacking, suggestive of an answer and unresponsive.........at best IMHO
Click to expand...

You mean you want more charges to add to any crime and to harass firearm owners who are second class citizens? I don't see this law as suggestive of any other response. What do you think it does?
 
imyoda said:
I have no ulterior message my friend.........But just wanted to highlight a "Common Sense" rule/law/regulation
Click to expand...

This is not correct. You made an observation and claim. I quote

Yeah, I know ..........."laws do not prevent these things from happening" .......... but they will go a long way to prevent "accidents"
Click to expand...

You are being requested to show the validity and functionality of that claimed statement.

If it is common sense as you say an explanation will be absolutely no problem

If on the other hand if you have no idea, at a loss, feel uncomfortable and cannot or will not answer correctly then one can say with a large degree of certainty you are simply repeating gun control propaganda.
 
Last edited:
imyoda said:
The term nitpicking comes to mind
Click to expand...

You make a statement and when asked to explain/support it and you claim I am nitpicking. Not much more intelligent than saying, "Your Mom" or "Nuh Uh.." Pretty goofy way to defend your position.
 
imyoda said:
High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices - ABC News
High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices


The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.

The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.

The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.

The Obama administration argued that the Second Amendment does not restrict laws forbidding guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.


The term "going postal" in the lobby is now against the law..........

Yeah, I know ..........."laws do not prevent these things from happening" .......... but they will go a long way to prevent "accidents"
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously the predominant problem with "Going Postal"......accidents. Shooting lots of people at a post office is usually an accident. :roll: Who is actually armed inside a post office. I've never seen anyone, so where is the security?
 
Crimefree said:
You mean you want more charges to add to any crime and to harass firearm owners who are second class citizens? I don't see this law as suggestive of any other response. What do you think it does?
Click to expand...

If you read the case you would know this was not about another law........but an employers right to see rules of employment........
 
BretJ said:
You make a statement and when asked to explain/support it and you claim I am nitpicking. Not much more intelligent than saying, "Your Mom" or "Nuh Uh.." Pretty goofy way to defend your position.
Click to expand...



If you say so..........

But it is not my position........

I just reported the findings of the lower court...........Didn't you bother to read the article before you went off half-cocked?
 
American said:
Yes, obviously the predominant problem with "Going Postal"......accidents. Shooting lots of people at a post office is usually an accident. :roll: Who is actually armed inside a post office. I've never seen anyone, so where is the security?
Click to expand...


Why not trying to read what the article was about first before you post.......


BTW

You seem to have no sense of humor too..........


Since you seem not to have read the entire string first............. you missed the humor......
 
imyoda said:
If you read the case you would know this was not about another law........but an employers right to see rules of employment........
Click to expand...

So you would support a lifetime non disclosure agreement?
 
imyoda said:
If you say so..........

But it is not my position........

I just reported the findings of the lower court...........Didn't you bother to read the article before you went off half-cocked?
Click to expand...

You were the one that ended your post with "It will go a long way....". That is what you were asked to support. Are you saying that it was not you that made that remark?
 
BretJ said:
You were the one that ended your post with "It will go a long way....". That is what you were asked to support. Are you saying that it was not you that made that remark?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of something called "opinion"............
 
This is a tradition I'm glad to keep standing.
If you read the article the SCOTUS brought up the fact that you cannot have privately owned weapons on Government property. This is how it should be.
I don't want to open the gates for some gangbanger to be able to go in, shoot the judge and "rescue" his buddy who is on trial.

Why would we want that?
This extends beyond just the Post Office.
 
Ntharotep said:
This is a tradition I'm glad to keep standing.
If you read the article the SCOTUS brought up the fact that you cannot have privately owned weapons on Government property. This is how it should be.
I don't want to open the gates for some gangbanger to be able to go in, shoot the judge and "rescue" his buddy who is on trial.

Why would we want that?
This extends beyond just the Post Office.
Click to expand...

lets think your argument through

You're a gangbanger

that means you are currently engaged in illegal gang activity

if you are intending to shoot a judge, do you think a sign saying NO GUNS is going to stop you?
 
imyoda said:
If you read the case you would know this was not about another law........but an employers right to see rules of employment........
Click to expand...

Oh dear another gun control advocate who needs a lot of dots or thought he found a bolt hole.

WTF did you post on?

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
what gaping stupidity: last I checked, it was already felony murder to shoot up your place of work no matter whether having the gun there was legal or illegal in the first place.
Click to expand...

You are correct but your argument/opinion is lacking, suggestive of an answer and unresponsive.........at best IMHO
Click to expand...

What would be the correct response to a law that does nothing and only a complete idiot would suggest some remedy can be made?

Want to try again and again until you do answer or are you going to admit there is no need for this stupid law? No need for discussing any remedy as all of them already exist. Why did you not see that?
 
Ntharotep said:
This is a tradition I'm glad to keep standing.
If you read the article the SCOTUS brought up the fact that you cannot have privately owned weapons on Government property. This is how it should be.
I don't want to open the gates for some gangbanger to be able to go in, shoot the judge and "rescue" his buddy who is on trial.
Click to expand...

So now you want to make laws for criminals to obey when there are laws already that they are willing to break? Would it be legal to try and rescue his buddy so you need a law to now make it illegal some how.

Do gun control advocates ever stop long enough to actually think? Could a gun control advocate give an example of this thinking they may claim to do?
 
imyoda said:
Why not trying to read what the article was about first before you post.......


BTW

You seem to have no sense of humor too..........


Since you seem not to have read the entire string first............. you missed the humor......
Click to expand...

Do us a favor and mark the punch lines next time.
 
imyoda said:
Ever hear of something called "opinion"............
Click to expand...

So you are unable to explain how you came to a particular opinion. Did you base this opinion using a rational thought process? If you cannot rationaly support your premise/opinion then just say so.
 
Ntharotep said:
This is a tradition I'm glad to keep standing.
If you read the article the SCOTUS brought up the fact that you cannot have privately owned weapons on Government property. This is how it should be.
I don't want to open the gates for some gangbanger to be able to go in, shoot the judge and "rescue" his buddy who is on trial.

Why would we want that?
This extends beyond just the Post Office.
Click to expand...

Is the law going to stop a gangbanger who wants to shoot the judge and rescue his buddy going to stop him? If so, I guess they can remove the metal detectors and armed protection. Please answer this, who is the law going to prevent from entering a post office and shooting the place up? Seriously. You don't think it is rather stupid to extend the gun free zone to the parking lot were someone who will obey the law concerning CCW in the building can leave his/her firearm for 5 minutes prior to going in?
 
TurtleDude said:
lets think your argument through

You're a gangbanger

that means you are currently engaged in illegal gang activity

if you are intending to shoot a judge, do you think a sign saying NO GUNS is going to stop you?
Click to expand...

You and I normally agree on most gun issues. However the banning of guns from government buildings and property should be allowed. I agree it will not stop the criminal who has no respect for the law. That is why security is necessary. The parking lot is kind of iffy in my opinion. I drive my mom over to the post office and she runs in and picks up a package my being armed in my vehicle in the parking lot does not seem to be a big problem. A lot of small town post offices you park on the street in front of the place. Does someone walking down the sidewalk have to cross the street because the sidewalk is part of the post office property? I think if you restrict carrying guns then I think these places need to clearly marked with signs and explicit rules. Tough call for sure.
 
imyoda said:
High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices - ABC News
High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices


The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.

The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes it is safer to... take a gun out of its holster, chamber check, check magazine, chamber check, place gun in vehicle (in sight of anyone around), do your business, return to vehicle, retrieve gun (in view of all), chamber check, magazine check, reload gun, chamber check, magazine check, replace in holster...rather than to simply keep it concealed has never properly handled a gun before. The key word is concealed. If you have a handgun and are going through the effort of taking it to a location where you feel the need to carry, simply keep it concealed. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about setting off a security alarm.) I would rather take my chances with the law rather than get shot by someone "going postal."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom