AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.
So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?
If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.
Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.
Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964