I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I was in no way saying I'm glad rangers have to go unarmed. I wish they could carry. I also wish I could carry.
How does banning CHL on COE land help against methheads, breaking the law to cook up illegal drugs on land they don't own? Or a hunter, illegally poaching? Or any other example you can cook up of people breaking laws other than firearms laws?
Why you're providing these examples? Are you trying to say that the higher ups are so dumb, they think that a law against firearms will help when dealing with people breaking all these other laws? Or are you trying to equate me (a generic CHL holder) with a methhead?
To make my position clear:
I understand the COE rangers have a lot of dangers to deal with. I wish they were allowed to protect themselves. Allowing me to protect myself on COE land in no way endangers or threatens formerly mentioned Rangers, so their job and the dangers they face have absolutely zero impact on whether or not I should be able to carry, because I'm not a threat to them, just as I am not a threat to my local Temple PD officers as I carry on my daily business.
It sure would be nice if the fed govt and all its fun little subsidiaries would recognize that I have a right to protect myself, on land I as a tax payer help finance.
