Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm kind of split on this issue. On one hand, there are positive examples where military personnel is allowed to carry guns even when taking a short vacation and visiting home. But on another hand, should we create another class of priviledged citizens?
And also, liberals tell us, that military weapons aren't suited for our streets. So, I guess police and military has no need to carry their machine-guns either.
Military should be armed, go question about it. Those 4 Marines and 1 sailor were sitting ducks.
For the record, anyone with a CCW (a real CCW with hands on range time) not a lousy on-line course shouldn't be stopped by non-federal or legal no carry zones.ie movie theaters.
Yes! Anyone should be able to carry any weapon anywhere here in the USA provided they are trained at least minimally. I do not believe in licensing. Control and licensing stops no one - rather obvious by the news. Why harness the good guys.
I understand the fundamental constitutional issue concerning licensing, but how are you going to manage "at least minimally trained" without it?
Military should be armed, go question about it. Those 4 Marines and 1 sailor were sitting ducks.
For the record, anyone with a CCW (a real CCW with hands on range time) not a lousy on-line course shouldn't be stopped by non-federal or legal no carry zones.ie movie theaters.
OK, so say that they were armed. Maybe they up their game to a bomb or just attack a school. The problem is not that they were unarmed the problem is that there are young idiots out there who have nothing better to do than post selfies and kill for some meaningless cause.
Military should be armed, go question about it. Those 4 Marines and 1 sailor were sitting ducks.
For the record, anyone with a CCW (a real CCW with hands on range time) not a lousy on-line course shouldn't be stopped by non-federal or legal no carry zones.ie movie theaters.
Military should be armed, go question about it. Those 4 Marines and 1 sailor were sitting ducks.
For the record, anyone with a CCW (a real CCW with hands on range time) not a lousy on-line course shouldn't be stopped by non-federal or legal no carry zones.ie movie theaters.
I think most CCW holders who actually carry tend to ignore 'no guns's signs unless they are enforced with a metal detector. If the building owner takes his responsibility to defend a gun owner (which in WI is implied when you forbid carrying inside your building) at a negligent level and don't really ensure that everyone in that building is unarmed, then the gun owners should not take those signs seriously as well.
Bars, Casino's, White House, Fort Knox, Schools, Airplanes?
Definitely yes to bars and casinos (with the permission of business owner). Whether one should be allowed to drink there or not, is open for discussion. I'd say it should be OK up to a certain point to have a beer or two, but wouldn't insist on it.
Definitely yes to schools for anyone who has a legit business to be in the school, i.e. teachers, other members of stuff, parents. Predators pick schools just for that reason that they know there will be no chance of meeting resistance there.
Airplanes? Definitely yes, with the appropriate training, and appropriate bullets that wouldn't penetrate the plane body (such bullets exist).
Fort Knox and White House? If I have a legitimate business to be there in the first place, why not? Those who are allowed to be around Fort Knox and inner parts of White House (those parts which are not for tourists) probably all have high clearance and allowed to carry everywhere in USA.
I think most CCW holders who actually carry tend to ignore 'no guns's signs unless they are enforced with a metal detector. If the building owner takes his responsibility to defend a gun owner (which in WI is implied when you forbid carrying inside your building) at a negligent level and don't really ensure that everyone in that building is unarmed, then the gun owners should not take those signs seriously as well.
But they'd better be careful of what the actual state law is. In Texas, a CHL holder who is armed can be asked to leave at any time even if there is no sign, and he must or face violation as a trespasser. But if there is the proper firearm prohibition sign (and the law is very specific about what "proper" must be), then if he's discovered with a firearm, that is a violation of the CHL law, and he will lose his CHL.
Definitely yes to bars and casinos (with the permission of business owner). Whether one should be allowed to drink there or not, is open for discussion. I'd say it should be OK up to a certain point to have a beer or two, but wouldn't insist on it.
Definitely yes to schools for anyone who has a legit business to be in the school, i.e. teachers, other members of stuff, parents. Predators pick schools just for that reason that they know there will be no chance of meeting resistance there.
Airplanes? Definitely yes, with the appropriate training, and appropriate bullets that wouldn't penetrate the plane body (such bullets exist).
Fort Knox and White House? If I have a legitimate business to be there in the first place, why not? Those who are allowed to be around Fort Knox and inner parts of White House (those parts which are not for tourists) probably all have high clearance and allowed to carry everywhere in USA.
If I were a commander of an aircraft or any government installation, I would not have anyone armed in it except my own people.
I think most CCW holders who actually carry tend to ignore 'no guns's signs unless they are enforced with a metal detector. If the building owner takes his responsibility to defend a gun owner (which in WI is implied when you forbid carrying inside your building) at a negligent level and don't really ensure that everyone in that building is unarmed, then the gun owners should not take those signs seriously as well.
So you can throw that "Law abiding gun owner" moniker out the window.
But they'd better be careful of what the actual state law is. In Texas, a CHL holder who is armed can be asked to leave at any time even if there is no sign, and he must or face violation as a trespasser. But if there is the proper firearm prohibition sign (and the law is very specific about what "proper" must be), then if he's discovered with a firearm, that is a violation of the CHL law, and he will lose his CHL.
concealed weapon needs to be... hmhm...concealed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
