He earns it. How do you get money? Good. Let them deny a few Christians and we will se how that goes Yay biological weapons for everyone!!
Absolutely for the same reason firearms are restricted in detention facilities. There is no logical reason for anyone, other than those who are authorized to possess firearms within headquarters to enter past the lobby with one. When I worked at the NSWC in Dania, I was not only required to stow my legally carried firearm in a Navy supplied locker before entering, the same applied to every communication and recording device I had in my possession. There are some places where security trumps rights, if one doesn't like that, one doesn't need to enter.
"There are some places where security trumps rights,..." So you are saying you agree with some of the restrictions that are in place on firearms yet in other posts I have gotten the impression you are pro gun and pro Second Amendment. So, if I am understanding it correctly, you are pro gun/pro Second Amendment but with some restrictions? Would you call those restrictions "common sense gun control"?
There will always be legally required restrictions on many rights, including the First and the Second. There is no such thing as common sense gun control, that is liberal-speak for banning firearms.
In the end, if pushed far enough, yes. However, there are some restrictions, that are so backed with common sense, something the anti's being one narrative driven, will never understand, they never get appealed and stand as they are.
One man's common sense is another man's restrictions. That is always the problem with gun control. When pushed, most everyone believes in some form of legal control on firearms. Finding that common ground is where the real problem begins. Personally I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I don't feel there should be any restrictions on arms. If you want an M-2 machine gun on your porch I am fine with that. I feel restricting arms comes in a different form than gun control. Parents should take care of children. Society should take care of crazies and felons. Thanks for your opinions. Rich
Those of sound mind who are old enough to fight and die for their country should enjoy the rights others have fought and died for. Guns are allowed on planes, court, and in stadiums. It is limited to law enforcement, but that just shows that the person behind the gun is, and always be the real issue. I got to live on a ranch when I was a kid. I has access to guns, ammo, and a private shooting range. I could shoot anytime I wanted as long as I reloaded the ammo when I was done.
Your question was simple and everyone draws the line somewhere. Somewhere between outlawing guns and legally owning a nuclear missile is common ground.
Tens of thousands daily? Perhaps you should question your own mental state? Its 10k and some change for homicides by firearm chief. ANNUALLY
Im sorry, I thought you wanted to have a polite discussion on the second amendment. I will know for next time.
They should be. Show me where the restrictions are listed in the second amendment. Freedom baby. Merica
I already answered your question and you already got your snarky comments in. Now you can show me where people are trying to give kids and felons access to guns.
Very true, those who honestly defend the Second would never push or call for "common sense" firearm regulations or demand restrictions on firearms to save the lives of children or claim the lack of regulations results in the senseless loss of lives. However anti-gunners even those who purport to support the Second or claim to own firearms (which quite often is another lie), demand all of those, truly want much more restrictions and will never stop until the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. is totally eliminated. Now that stated, I believe their are some restrictions that just make sense and as a supporter of the Second I support such restrictions. If a person is convicted, not just accused of a crime of violence, they should understand they will forfeit their right to keep and possess firearms and ammunition forever and any such future possession shall be considered another crime for which they can be convicted and incarcerated. If a person is convicted, not just accused of a crime of sexual battery upon a minor, they should understand they will forfeit their right to keep and possess firearms and ammunition forever and any such future possession shall be considered another crime for which they can be convicted and incarcerated. If a person is convicted, not just accused of a crime of distributing illegal drugs, they should understand they will forfeit their right to keep and possess firearms and ammunition forever and any such future possession shall be considered another crime for which they can be convicted and incarcerated. If a person is found by a court after a full examination by at least two mental health practitioners to be a danger to themselves or others, they should understand they will forfeit their right to keep and possess firearms and ammunition, until such time a mental health practitioner signs off that they no longer present such a danger to themselves or others. Property owners should be able to restrict the bearing of firearms on their property, a persons right under the Second should be able to be ended at the property line of another person. Now of course someone will chirp "well what about law enforcement you cannot tell them they don't have a Second Amendment right to come on your property," which is foolish because a LEO is not carrying under the Second, but are authorized by law to carry, and that would supersede the property holders right to ban firearms on his property. As for public property, generally speaking there should be no restrictions applied except in certain defined circumstances, a good example would be detention facilities or other high risk locations.
Kids can't have guns because they depend on adults for everything they get. Felons, however, can have guns. Every felon who wants one, has one.
