Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 5 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Metal detectors not needed at courthouse
Published Monday, November 9, 2009
The issue of guns, especially hand guns in public places, has always fascinated me. Too often in this land of the free, law-abiding citizens are forced to give up their freedoms in the name of safety or perceived safety.
Take the latest county commission’s consideration to move the metal detectors to the front doors of the courthouse, let alone carrying a gun on the premises, as a perfect example of perceived safety. It is interesting that in a building that was designated to uphold your rights in a free America that you are not allowed to practice your constitutionally protected right by the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, the Sheriff’s office in the courthouse is where you would go if you want to secure your freedom to bear arms, yet you can’t bring your gun to ensure this right.
Where in the Constitution does it provide for the right to protection for certain citizens—those working at the courthouse—when I’ll bet at your job no such “protective measures” have been enacted? Falsely, people believe that law enforcement has the obligation to protect private citizens, but just ask the Supreme Court, and they’ll tell you that no such obligation exists. I challenge you to research the rulings when police agencies are sued for not providing such round-the-clock, bodyguard protection.
Personal safety is the individual’s responsibility, not the role of law enforcement—and certainly not the role of metal detectors. Taking on your role of personal protection should not be left up to the government because they will provide you with nothing more than a perceived notion of safety.
Meanwhile, they expect you to relinquish your rights that the Founding Fathers fought and died for in building this Nation.
– Kevin Laws, Clanton
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by getbizi (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting perspective, Mr. Laws. I too, am a staunch proponent of the 2nd Amendment. "Whenever seconds count, the police are only minutes away." However, courthouse security should hold different merit because of the sensitivity of the courtroom and the heightened threats that are posed. I wouldnt want a guy who's about to lose everything bringing a .357 into a custody hearing? With that thought in mind, today is when my own concealed carry permit expires. I'll be stopping by to pay that $20 fee for exercising the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by penandpaper1 (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very nicely said. your comment should have been posted next to the original article. Better thought out, and written.
Posted by Vincent (anonymous) on November 14, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Friend, let us just add up a few things wrong with this perception. Let us imagine you are a man paid to deal with taking things away from people (foreclosures, or garnishments as example), what is to stop the defendant from just putting a hole in the back of your head as a desperate act to save what they are losing?
I do not think people, violent crime or not, should have firearms in such a place as a courthouse. Much less a victim, who would be just as likely as to murder someone all depending on what crime was committed against them. You say it is a 'conspiracy' from the government. I say it averts replays of the old 'wild west' when a gun made the rules. This thought process astounds me how anyone would think they would need a gun inside a courtroom. Your theory does uphold the 2nd amendment to the utmost and at the same time supports anarchy which actually counters the rights we have.
Posted by klaws (anonymous) on November 15, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand your point Vincent, but the argument in paragraph one just doesn't hold water. I can turn it around and suggest that anyone willing to become a courthouse shooter will certainly not be deterred by metal detectors. If you are willing to commit cold-blooded murder, do you really think a metal detector will make that same person think twice about it. Hardly. Furthermore, the fact that the shooter knows that no one in the courthouse will be armed may actually be more of an incitement than a deterrent.
Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe there is a government conspiracy as you suggest I do. It is not a conspiracy, when it is very blatant that YOUR rights have been taken away. The real question you need to answer is, Are you okay with YOUR rights being taken away? Who does the courthouse belong to, the government or the people? What other rights would you be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety or anything else? Who was the constitution written for, the people or those in power? It is not anarchy, my friend, it is tyranny. When the government fear the people, it is not anarchy, it is liberty.
Posted by OhMeOMy (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Courtrooms, at least, most definitely need metal detectors! Although it's been quite some time ago, I was personally threatened while inside a courtroom by someone carrying a concealed weapon. There was only one police officer in that room, up front, by the Judge - no way I could alert anyone to the fact that this person had a gun tucked inside his jacket, vowing he would not go to jail. I sacrificed my right to justice: It could not be had without endangering myself and many others. What do you call it when people fear other people? I say "yes" to metal detectors!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)