Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Chattanooga TN Marine Recruiting Office Shooting
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sanford" data-source="post: 2770855" data-attributes="member: 27733"><p>Civilians working on military installations have precisely the same rights to be armed as do military, which is essentially none (with a few exceptions as you noted). On most installations neither group can even "leave it in the car" which results in them being unable to be armed when traveling to/from a military installation, also. That's about as obvious a case of "infringement" as I can think of yet it's a fact on most installations today.</p><p></p><p>My only concern is the use of the term "all" as there are those in both groups (military and civilian) those who have become disqualified (or disqualified themselves) from possession of firearms on a temporary or permanent basis. I would heartily agree that the default should be for anyone to be armed for their own defense or the defense of others, but I also believe there are (and should be) disqualifying factors that need to be taken into account that make the total somewhat less than "all".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sanford, post: 2770855, member: 27733"] Civilians working on military installations have precisely the same rights to be armed as do military, which is essentially none (with a few exceptions as you noted). On most installations neither group can even "leave it in the car" which results in them being unable to be armed when traveling to/from a military installation, also. That's about as obvious a case of "infringement" as I can think of yet it's a fact on most installations today. My only concern is the use of the term "all" as there are those in both groups (military and civilian) those who have become disqualified (or disqualified themselves) from possession of firearms on a temporary or permanent basis. I would heartily agree that the default should be for anyone to be armed for their own defense or the defense of others, but I also believe there are (and should be) disqualifying factors that need to be taken into account that make the total somewhat less than "all". [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Chattanooga TN Marine Recruiting Office Shooting
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom