The rise of the European aristocracy, the original nobles of the sword as opposed to the nobles of the robe like the political suckups of the later days of the French monarchy, or people like Elton John being given knighthoods, happened in an evolution similar with that of trends I see forming up with law enforcement. It took several generations for it to happen, but the humble defender of the village eventually became the lord and owner of the village and the people contained therein. This shapes much of my position regarding law enforcement and the idea that there is no room in a free society for some animals to be more equal than others.
So I guess you're suggesting that we should abolish LE? It appears that you want the powers or LE. You personally can't arrest for all crimes, get involved in chases in a vehicle, point a gun at a person who is not complying with your orders, handle illicit drugs, compel a person to stop their vehicle, nor detain a person who does not wish to be detained. So you have issue that those in law enforcement can do these things? If so, then you MUST be suggesting that we abolish LE, so you can get part of that action too.
Fact of the matter, if you want to phrase it that way, it is true "some animals are more equal than others."
I'm pretty sure you can't tap phone lines, use chemical agents to do hair, wage war against a foreign nation, negotiate with foreign govts, fly a commercial airliner, transport nuclear material, filibuster a congressional bill, keep a cadaver in your basement to dissect, sit in black robes and pass judgment on legal cases, or get up from gallery in courtroom, and sit in the jury box and vote on guilt or innocence.
So let's abolish them all, since you feel like you're missing out, and let you get in on the fun.
Besides this, we can return to the absence of an asterisk in the Second Amendment and the fact that, as Bill has so thoroughly explained, it is entirely possible to keep inmates separate from weapons without curbstomping the Constitution.
You won't ever get me to believe that the founders, upon the drafting of the Constitution thought.... "everybody should have guns everywhere they should go, and to hell with the tyrants who would disarm us as we entered a prison."
But I digress... you think prisoners having access to firearms is the only issue? How about the guys coming into the prison WITH the firearms???? It's not exactly unknown for people to try to shoot their way into places to free someone being detained.
As for your distinction between purposes for visits, I offer you one question: Who paid for the damned prison in the first place? Your position there necessarily rests on the notion that the rule of law emanates from government as a self-existent entity rather than as an agent of the citizens.
The people did. You've paid, for:
My first uniform - and no I wouldn't let you try it on
F16s - and no I doubt they'll let you take it for a spin
Roads - no, you can't have a family picnic in the middle of it during rush hour
Air Force One - No, you can't hitch a ride with the president
The Lincoln Memorial - no, you can paint it green
The White House - no you can't get a key and spend a night from time to time
The CDC - No, you can't get a sample of Ebola
M1A1s - no you can't have one to take your date to your HS reunion
Just because you paid for it (a portion) does not entitle you to universal access to use. How is that not common sense?