Jump to content



Photo

Judge & Town Council attack Second Amendment


  • Please log in to reply
318 replies to this topic

#261 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:53 PM

I've just cleaned up posts in this thread where some members have attacked other members for their opinion.

 

It's against the rules... If this continues the thread will be locked...

 

Just post about the topic... stop the personal attacks...


  • GrumpyGranny, TomD, Russell Brooksbank and 1 other like this

#262 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 02 May 2015 - 09:13 PM

Thanks. Personal attacks accomplish nothing good.



#263 MrCrowder

MrCrowder

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 03 May 2015 - 05:43 AM

I stopped reading around page 9, because it seemed to beat the same dead horses over and over again.

What I come back to is this:

Allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in the public building has never been a problem. No records of any issues in the past, correct? Even the police chief made that point.
This new judge is stirring this controversy just to make a name for himself. He apparently thinks he can trick enough voters into believing his viewpoint that this is "necessary" for the safety of everyone even though he, like many gun-control advocates, can not provide and facts to support his views. He simply is imposing his personal opinion on everyone else in the form of a new law. Typical politician.

Just leave people alone. Its simple! Just leave them ALONE.  Allow people to excerise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and focus on other issues that are actually important. Do your job without infringing on the rights of people. 

If you keep your weapon concealed as you should, there will be no alarm and no controversy. Yes, Indiana doesn't prohibit open-carrying, and I believe it should be legal, but I'm not a fan. Open-carrying a weapon is nothing more than attracting attention to yourself and your weapon. Even a police officer (which I am) will rarely, if ever, carry a weapon openly when off-duty. No trained officer wants to attract attention to himself.

Hide your gun tactfully, go in the public building and conduct your business, and as it has always been up until now, no one will be the wiser.  

I got off-topic a bit because I forsee some activists trying to make a point. I can't stand open-carry activists who do more harm than good for law-abiding citizens.  This should never even be a discussion, but unfortunately, there are politicians who are determined to infringe on rights, and there are gullible, ignorant voters who are tricked into supporting them.


  • GrumpyGranny, TomD, littletommy and 2 others like this

#264 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 11:55 PM

Jimmy Guilfoyle should be elected town court judge.  This whole thread has illustrated some extreme views....but nothing to challenge the fact he is a sound choice for handling the cases in that court.



#265 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:11 AM

Jimmy Guilfoyle apparently has fallen right in with the Clarksville political machine, he needs to be sent packing on that alone, doesn't matter what his qualifications as judge are at this point.
  • GrumpyGranny and Russell Brooksbank like this

#266 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 05:40 PM

Jimmy Guilfoyle has proven to me that he doesn't understand the difference between constitutional and legal. I want a judge that knows the difference.
  • littletommy likes this

#267 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:13 PM

Jimmy Guilfoyle is his own man.   A fine person and a bright young legal mind.  

 

Establishing the court and its environs as a place you can't bring a weapon is not only sensible, but has been in effect in the County Building for

years now. 

 

I am having a hard time understanding how this thread, begun by claiming he was 'attacking' is anything other than politically motivated.

This is a shame in my opinion.



#268 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:18 PM

Ah, but he didn't stop with the court, did he?
  • littletommy likes this

#269 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:02 PM

Ah, but he didn't stop with the court, did he?

Nah, why not go all the way, he doesn't have to deal with it, he's exempt.


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#270 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:28 PM

Jimmy Guilfoyle is his own man.   A fine person and a bright young legal mind.  

 

Establishing the court and its environs as a place you can't bring a weapon is not only sensible, but has been in effect in the County Building for

years now. 

 

I am having a hard time understanding how this thread, begun by claiming he was 'attacking' is anything other than politically motivated.

This is a shame in my opinion.

So, going from previous posts of yours, I take it that you work at the county bldg, correct? I'm thinking maybe prosecutors office?

If so, are you exempted from the no weapon ban?



#271 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:34 PM

So, going from previous posts of yours, I take it that you work at the county bldg, correct? I'm thinking maybe prosecutors office?

If so, are you exempted from the no weapon ban?

 

Littletommy, questioning members about their identity, trying to figure out who they are and/or trying to out them is against the policy of the Chatter. Please refrain from this type of post.

 

Oh, and don't expect Pesty to answer your questions; he knows he doesn't have to...



#272 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:37 PM

So, going from previous posts of yours, I take it that you work at the county bldg, correct? I'm thinking maybe prosecutors office?

If so, are you exempted from the no weapon ban?

 

But I do have to ask you why you would assume he works at the courthouse. Anyone who has gone into that building for years knows they have metal detectors and guards on the doors...doesn't take someone working in the building to share that info.

 

Edited to add that the safety measures at the courthouse don't seem to stop folks from going in to tend to business...



#273 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:43 PM

Do they have a choice DonnaK?

#274 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 08:46 PM

I also witnessed within a span of 15 minutes two people being waved through those metal detectors even though they set them off. Why do their lives matter more than mine? Why can't I protect myself too?

#275 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 09:01 PM

Do they have a choice DonnaK?

 

Well, no, they don't have a choice; not if they need to go in to conduct business. Has anyone been harmed by going into the building unarmed or has it been business as usual?

 

Look, I'm not an anti-gun activist. You have a right to carry and protect yourself. Makes no difference to me. I personally don't see the need to secure the entire town hall, and I think it sucks that you can't carry in the building but employees or whoever is exempted can. If they're going to do it, it should apply to everyone.

 

My only point, if I even had one, was to say yes, Pesty is correct, the courthouse has been secured for years; people, including me, continue to go into the building when necessary, just like I will continue to go to town hall. The new security measures won't make me feel any more or less secure, but will be a pain in the backside, and, I will repeat, unnecessary for the entire building...especially since there are exempted people walking around in the building. People I don't know, people I would not necessarily trust simply because they work for the town.



#276 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 09:02 PM

No problem Donna, was just basing my question off what he has posted on this forum.
  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#277 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 09:25 PM

Well, no, they don't have a choice; not if they need to go in to conduct business. Has anyone been harmed by going into the building unarmed or has it been business as usual?


No, but using Judge Guilfoyles reasoning we better do something about that quick. God forbid someone gets killed walking into the building, or even worse, by one of those exempted employees. We don't want that blood on our hands, do we?

My only point, if I even had one, was to say yes, Pesty is correct, the courthouse has been secured for years; people, including me, continue to go into the building when necessary, just like I will continue to go to town hall.


And that is how incrementalism works my friends. If the government took all our liberty away in one fell swoop there would be a massive revolution. They know this. That's why they do it incrementally.

#278 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 08 May 2015 - 06:39 AM

So, going from previous posts of yours, I take it that you work at the county bldg, correct? I'm thinking maybe prosecutors office?

If so, are you exempted from the no weapon ban?

 

 

 

Many people are not subjected to the screening and searches that ordinary visitors to the building are...waving people through the detectors is done as a matter of courtesy to known people who frequently enter the courthouse.  Right or wrong?  You decide.


Edited by TomD, 08 May 2015 - 07:30 AM.


#279 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 08 May 2015 - 09:01 AM

Wrong! Their lives don't matter more than mine or yours. Why do they get to protect themselves and we don't?

#280 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 09 May 2015 - 09:38 AM

Of course it is right. Why should the guards detain people whom they know and know are not any sort of threat? That would just waste everyone's time including the people whom they don't know who would have to be further delayed while pointless checks were being made on 'the regulars'. 

 

This is why rigid thinking breaks down. Doesn't work.  Life is flexible.  yeah, I guess you could live every waking moment by rigid rules...but what a dull stupid world it would be.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users