Thoughts On Prisons and Gun Control

Zip gun (courtesy homemadeweapons.net)

One_if_by_land1776 writes:

Prisons are arguably are one of the most controlled environments where humans live. Everything about a prison is [supposed] to be controlled. Security is prevalent, on site and ready to respond to any incident on short notice. Its inhabitants have few rights – privacy and search and seizure laws aren’t among them. Inmates and their living quarters are subject to random searches without notice, warrant or probable cause. Monitoring cameras are virtually everywhere, and big brother is [supposed to be] always watching inmates’ every move. It is, more than any other place, the ultimate “weapons-free” zone. Despite this, inmates still manage to secure weapons of various sorts. While these weapons rarely include firearms . . .

sometimes they do. Regardless, dangerous weapons somehow are able to manifest themselves in a place where they are not only prohibited, but is designed specifically to limit access to such items.

How then, can anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence seriously believe that we can truly eliminate the illicit acquisition and use of any weapon, specifically firearms, in what is [mostly] a free and open society?

comments

  1. avatar John L. says:

    Same thing’s true regarding drugs, for that matter.

    1. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

      Just as some guards sling dope, some governments do too.

    2. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Or anything else a criminal wants or needs to be a criminal. And even if you could eliminate all the things a criminal needs to be a criminal, you’d still have a criminal.

      You can’t keep guns away from criminals. However, you can keep criminals away from guns. It’s the same means by which we keep criminals away from the rest of us.

      1. avatar Broken 3ight says:

        I don’t follow. How do you keep criminals away from guns?

        1. avatar Tits McGee says:

          By reducing the number of firearms in circulation, there are less to go around.

  2. avatar M. Mitchell Marmel says:

    Er…what makes you think they HAVE any semblance of logic or intelligence?

    1. avatar dwb says:

      this times 1000

  3. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well said, sir. That’s something one of our Republican hopefuls (currently looking like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul) needs to ask Hillary (or whichever anti-gun Demcrat who runs for POTUS) point blank in a debate scenario.

    1. avatar John Smith says:

      The Dems and miscellaneous libtards don’t care if thugs have guns– they care if YOU have guns! They have security to deal with the thugs. But you– you probably think for yourself, and are not dependent on them. Therefore you are a threat to their position. Better an un-armed threat.

      So the “prisoners get guns therefore people in a so-called free society will too” argument is meaningless to them. Thugs aren’t the enemy. Independent thinkers are.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        While that is all true, are you saying that you would not enjoy watching Hillary explain that position on national TV?

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Bingo. Hillary has a lot of explaining to do, and none of it is pretty. I’d thoroughly enjoy a real debater (not a wuss like Romney) make her sweat in public – make her reveal her true narcissism and desire to control her subjects by making them defenseless.

          Those who have worked her security details know her for the wretched scum that she really is. I can neither confirm nor deny any personal experience in the matter.

        2. avatar John says:

          You’ll rarely find out what a politician will do by listening to what they say. Hillary is no exception. (She may be the poster child)

          If they have an answer ready that passed the focus groups, that’s what you’ll get. If they don’t have a tested answer, they’ll change the subject or attack your motives. They’ll say or do anything – logic, facts, truth, all be damned, to get elected. The electorate that understand this – who see past the lies and obfuscation – don’t matter to them. They only have to fool just over half of the voters. And, remember, half of the voters are dumber than average.

          In the end the only thing that matters to them, is that you don’t.

          (I used to be cynical. Times have changed. Nowadays I’m a lot less optimistic.)

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Candidates don’t ask each other questions in those debates. The debates are scripted events. Each candidate gets a copy of the questions, in order, well in advance, with the option of removing distasteful questions.

      The Commission on Presidential Debates is a farce created by the republi-crats to perpetuate the false dichotomy of republican v. democrat, while hiding the true conflict of state power v. individual power.

  4. avatar FTA says:

    This is one of my main talking points when debating antis. Not that I will ever change one of their minds, my real objective is the fence sitters that may be listening.

  5. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Well, it’s a relief to know that when I’m in the slammer because my guns got banned by the Evil Racist Homophobic Killing Machines and Clipazines Mandatory Buyback Act of 2017, I’ll still be able to get some trigger time.

    1. avatar James says:

      “How then, can anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence seriously believe that we can truly eliminate the illicit acquisition and use of any weapon, specifically firearms, in what is [mostly] a free and open society?”

      The error in your thinking is that they don’t want a free and open society. What real choice do most antis actually believe you should be able to make without some government/state interference. Abortion and sexual practices are about it.

  6. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “How then, can anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence seriously believe that we can truly eliminate the illicit acquisition and use of any weapon, specifically firearms, in what is [mostly] a free and open society?”

    You don’t. Tightly gun-controlled societies (even prisons) quickly become smuggler’s havens. Guns are as available as drugs in gun controlled countries, something that even draconian laws cannot control. For gun controllers, however, this doesn’t really matter. For them, gun-control (along with climate change and a host of other symbolic causes) is a sacred belief that must be observed whether or not it’s actual manifestation as laws accomplish any goals at all. For them, gun-control, is a symbolic reference point that tells them their closely held values are valid—-and which means that they, too, are valid. So, even if gun-control is counter-productive, actually contributing to disorder, if the Ture Believers can see that their symbols are in place they’re happy.

  7. avatar Mike says:

    Just as prohibition of alcohol and now of drugs, if guns were banned, they would simply be another revenue producing product for criminals to deal in and kill people over. They already are to some degree but with a complete ban, they would control them from manufacture to distribution. The only ones without them would be those of us who chose not to participate in illegal activities, making us sitting ducks.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      The only power a government has over it’s people is the power to make things illegal.

      If it stuck to only having laws that outlawed rape, robbery, assault and murder, it would have no power over the people at all.

  8. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Yup. I made this argument to many antis and Fudds two decades ago. I don’t recall ever hearing a decent counterargument.

  9. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “How then, can anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence seriously believe that we can truly eliminate the illicit acquisition and use of any weapon, specifically firearms… ”

    “… anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence….”

    There it is – the anti-gun left is unable to meet even that minimal a criteria.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “How then, can anyone with any semblance of logic or intelligence seriously believe that we can truly eliminate the illicit acquisition and use of any weapon, specifically firearms, in what is [mostly] a free and open society?”

    I have put this question before gun-grabbers. The smarter grabbers openly admit that they cannot eliminate ALL firearms. Nevertheless they claim to believe that they would seriously REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals and that would be a positive outcome (in their eyes).

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      While it might reduce the number of guns in criminal hands, it would also leave most law-abiding people pretty much defenseless. Which means many criminals don’t need a gun anymore, because a knife or pointy stick will work just fine on an unarmed victim… *cough*England*cough*

      This is the kind of simple logic that absolutely lays bare the gun-grabber’s true agenda. They may claim to be concerned with crime, but the truth is, they simply want people to be absolutely dependent on government.

  11. avatar arsh says:

    there’s a guy who bought a used horse poop shovel at a garage sale for $10 that turned it into an AK. And while it’s not the best ak it is in fact an ak further promoting where there is a will there is a way.

  12. avatar teebonicus says:

    Bob, the answer is simple.

    They want total control of all aspects of society.

    Period.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    “We need a better class of prisoner.”

    Lester Maddox

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email