Usually it’s liberals that draw stupid equivalencies between non-related things. Grats!
My position is that from the standpoint of a gun shop owner, my liability is decreased if I am able to ascertain who is coming in the store to rent a gun for range use. Many ranges are organized by “clubs” who know who their members are. If I owned a range in an “urban” area, I would be disinclined from a cost/benefit standpoint to renting to whomever walked in off the street.
>>> Renting firearms to anyone that walks in the door just seems like a recipe for trouble.
>>
>>So does letting just anyone that is born in this country just speak their mind. I mean, we should at least run them through a government check to see if they have badmouthed the government before allowing them to exercise their first amendment rights. Then we’ll issue them a Free Speech permit.
>
>Usually it’s liberals that draw stupid equivalencies between non-related things. Grats!
The relationship is that they are both rights specifically recognized in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
>My position is that from the standpoint of a gun shop owner, my liability is decreased if I am able to ascertain who is coming in the store to rent a gun for range use.
IMO, you have no culpability for the actions of others unless you were either coercing, encouraging, or otherwise aiding/abetting that action.
>Many ranges are organized by “clubs” who know who their members are. If I owned a range in an “urban” area, I would be disinclined from a cost/benefit standpoint to renting to whomever walked in off the street.
Isn’t that the point of the “We reserve the right to refuse service” signs?