I raised this question
the reply from TurtleNot the laws on the books - but your new standard of only allowing a special people that you previously described to be armed to the teeth?
How do you apply a standard for that and keep from violating the Second Amendment?
Very good.we already have laws that ban those who have criminal records or other disqualifying features from owning any sort of firearms
Which leaves hundreds of millions who potentially can carry.if you cannot own a firearm, you cannot lawfully carry one nor pass the additional screening almost every state imposes on those who wish to carry weapons
You have done an excellent job turtle of educating folks here just how powerful and damaging one weapon can be in the hands of someone as highly trained and skilled as yourself. You have discussing being able to take out dozens of people if need be. I would say that qualifies in being armed to the teeth when you can dispatch several dozen people by your own admission with a single powerful weapon that you can carry.it is almost impossible to carry enough weapons concealed to be "armed to the teeth" one concealed handgun hardly invokes that sort of image
And so it would be under the law. And so it would apply to hundreds of millions of people who would meet that law and be able to publicly carry a weapon.so to me, if you can legally own weapons (ie you are an adult with no felony record, mental incompetence as determined by a court etc) and you have fulfilled the requirements to carry a weapon that is the proper process
So now we are back to my question: is that the sort of society that we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society where that is the norm every day?