• 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!

A compromise to gun free zones.

Maccabee

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
2,054
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?
 
??? Gun-free zones are a compromise enacted instead of more restrictive regulations similar to those in place for machine guns.
 
Xelor said:
??? Gun-free zones are a compromise enacted instead of more restrictive regulations similar to those in place for machine guns.
Click to expand...

Gun free zones have attracted target rich environments.
 
Maccabee said:
I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?
Click to expand...

How about if you remove the ability for one to defend oneself, then you are liable for their safety.
 
Xelor said:
??? Gun-free zones are a compromise enacted instead of more restrictive regulations similar to those in place for machine guns.

Maccabee said:
Gun free zones have attracted target rich environments.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Blue:
....And that, be it so, partly so, or not so, has what to do with my comment?
 
Nap said:
How about if you remove the ability for one to defend oneself, then you are liable for their safety.
Click to expand...

Sure. I only came up with this idea if eliminating gun free zones or holding gun free zones liable isn't an option.
 
Maccabee said:
Sure. I only came up with this idea if eliminating gun free zones or holding gun free zones liable isn't an option.
Click to expand...

It only makes sense that if you deprive one the ability to defend oneself that you are now responsible for that person's safety. It would help to make things safer as people that wanted to keep areas a gun free zone would now need to actually enforce that position rather than simply placing a sticker on the window and believing it would help.
 
Xelor said:
Blue:
....And that, be it so, partly so, or not so, has what to do with my comment?
Click to expand...

It has as much to do with your comment as your comment has to do with OP. I asked for thoughts about the idea about having an endorsement for CCW permits. I did not asked for why gun free zones were implemented in the first place.
 
Xelor said:
Blue:
....And that, be it so, partly so, or not so, has what to do with my comment?
Click to expand...

the ban on machine gun ownership-designed to derail a pro gun bipartisan bill-has absolutely nothing to do with gun free zones.
 
Maccabee said:
I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?
Click to expand...

Xelor said:
??? Gun-free zones are a compromise enacted instead of more restrictive regulations similar to those in place for machine guns.
Click to expand...

Maccabee said:
Gun free zones have attracted target rich environments.
Click to expand...

Xelor said:
Blue:
....And that, be it so, partly so, or not so, has what to do with my comment?
Click to expand...

Maccabee said:
It has as much to do with your comment as your comment has to do with OP. I asked for thoughts about the idea about having an endorsement for CCW permits. I did not asked for why gun free zones were implemented in the first place.
Click to expand...
Blue:
The target richness of gun free zones has nothing at all to do with the fact that gun free zones' very existence is a compromise to more restrictive regulations on gun ownership/carrying. What you've "been thinking of" is a way to further compromise that which was agreed on as a compromise in the first place. People who wanted something more restrictive and people who wanted something far less restrictive agreed that gun free zones were a compromise they both could forbear. Now you want to chip away at that even further.

One common gun free zone, AFAIK, is any bar, nightclub or similar establishment, but perhaps not restaurants. Well, off duty cops in such places are just as drunk and just as susceptible to alcohol's influence as are people of every other profession. I don't want an off-duty buzzed (or worse) cop in a bar or nightclub, country club, or any other "watering hole" with a gun.
 
TurtleDude said:
the ban on machine gun ownership-designed to derail a pro gun bipartisan bill-has absolutely nothing to do with gun free zones.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what it was designed to do. The fact is it's in place and has been deemed a Constitutional form of gun regulation.
 
Xelor said:
I don't really care what it was designed to do. The fact is it's in place and has been deemed a Constitutional form of gun regulation.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been taken up by the Supreme Court

I know this is a big assumption but if you read MILLER and HELLER, its hard to find the 86 MG ban constitutional
 
 
 
Maccabee said:
Gun free zones have attracted target rich environments.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

One guy in the "crazy" media makes something up and the entire brood repeats it. Believes it!
 
noonereal said:
Ohhhhhhhhh, the irony.
Click to expand...

ah one of those gun banners who thinks guns are penises. You should make an attempt to pretend you understand the issue like Xelor even if he doesn't understand the difference between "failing to review" vs UPHOLDING the decision.
 
Maccabee said:
I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?
Click to expand...

I am fine with this but it needs to include extensive bc and extensive training. And no guns on planes. Even cops can't do that
 
vegas giants said:
I am fine with this but it needs to include extensive bc and extensive training. And no guns on planes. Even cops can't do that
Click to expand...

Pilots should be allowed to carry guns on planes and we should have armed guards on planes.
 
Xelor said:
I don't really care what it was designed to do. The fact is it's in place and has been deemed a Constitutional form of gun regulation.
Click to expand...
"Deemed a Constitutional" I can "deem" myself as the EMPEROR OF THE UNIVERSE but that dosen't mean I am.
 
Nah. I'd rather just avoid gun-free zones than put myself on some additional gun-tracking radar.

Odds are much higher I wont get killed the few times I'll have to enter a gun-free zone.

I'm under no obligation to nor am I inclined to carry to protect anyone else, so it doesnt seem worthwhile. Maybe a family adult with kids and that had to spend time in gun-free zones would think differently.
 
zsu2357 said:
"Deemed a Constitutional" I can "deem" myself as the EMPEROR OF THE UNIVERSE but that dosen't mean I am.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can, but I suspect too that you lack the imprimatur of a bench; thus while you may do so, nobody will give a damn about your having done.
 
Xelor said:
??? Gun-free zones are a compromise enacted instead of more restrictive regulations similar to those in place for machine guns.
Click to expand...
I have a better idea. Get rid of all gun free zones.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom