So you are telling a law abiding citizen who can help under priviliged kids they can't because of ideology. What about the kids ? Why don't you or this agency care about the kids ?

 

If they cared about the kids why wouldn't they just comply and take the kids in? Obviously their loaded gun is more important than taking the kids with no home in. I care about the kids. I'd comply with the law.

So you are telling a law abiding citizen who can help under priviliged kids they can't because of ideology. What about the kids ? Why don't you or this agency care about the kids ?

 

"The couple’s attempts at adopting have been stopped by regulations requiring that guns and ammunition be stored in separate, secure containers in any home where foster children reside."

 

If they don't meet this requirement that is their fault.

Nobody is telling you that you can't load your weapon in your home. They are just saying if you choose to do that, you are not going to be able to adopt kids. You have to make a choice.

 

Surely this isn't that hard to understand...

Kind of like, you have the right to vote, but you have to pass a test first?

How is it not comparable?

 

I have a right to keep a gun loaded in my home. Bearing arms is a right. Driving is a privilige and drinking while driving is a crime. Keeping a secured loaded gun in my house is not a crime.

"The couple’s attempts at adopting have been stopped by regulations requiring that guns and ammunition be stored in separate, secure containers in any home where foster children reside."

 

If they don't meet this requirement that is their fault.

 

Nope. Time to change the regulation.

I have a right to keep a gun loaded in my home. Bearing arms is a right. Driving is a privilige and drinking while driving is a crime. Keeping a secured loaded gun in my house is not a crime.

 

And no one is taking away that right.

Nope. Time to change the regulation.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that will not be happening to appease one couple that failed to meet the requirements. If they can't meet them, no kids to foster. It's that simple.

I have a right to keep a gun loaded in my home. Bearing arms is a right. Driving is a privilige and drinking while driving is a crime. Keeping a secured loaded gun in my house is not a crime.

 

Nope. If you want to adopt kids you can't have that loaded gun unsecured though and there are policies that say so. Those policies need to be followed as much as the laws about drinking and driving need to be followed until they get their bill passed.

I have a right to keep a gun loaded in my home. Bearing arms is a right. Driving is a privilige and drinking while driving is a crime. Keeping a secured loaded gun in my house is not a crime.

 

Not a crime, but fails to meet the regulations of a foster care program.

I have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. If you try and tell me I can't load my weapon in my home that is the very definition of infringement . I can let some of you borrow my Webster dictionary and copy of the constitution if you want.

Even the most conservative of the Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia, says there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. In other words, there ain't anything unconstitutional about states requiring a form of gun control in order to become foster parents. Which is why a legislative solution is being sought in Nevada, not a judicial one.

Kind of like, you have the right to vote, but you have to pass a test first?

 

That wouldn't bother me any as long as there isn't any math and science on it and we get a study guide in a timely manner.

That wouldn't bother me any as long as there isn't any math and science on it and we get a study guide in a timely manner.

How about the test being nothing but proof of reading ability?

How about the test being nothing but proof of reading ability?

 

:lol2:

 

Is it a timed test and will there be spelling on it?

:lol2:

 

Is it a timed test and will there be spelling on it?

 

 

Here it is:

 

Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

 

But this Louisiana “literacy” test, singular among its fellows, has nothing to do with citizenship. Designed to put the applicant through mental contortions, the test's questions are often confusingly worded. If some of them seem unanswerable, that effect was intentional. The (white) registrar would be the ultimate judge of whether an answer was correct.

 

Link

Here it is:

 

Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

 

But this Louisiana “literacy” test, singular among its fellows, has nothing to do with citizenship. Designed to put the applicant through mental contortions, the test's questions are often confusingly worded. If some of them seem unansw erable, that effect was intentional. The (white) registrar would be the ultimate judge of whether an answer was correct.

 

Link

 

Well crap, I'd have failed those tests. Thank God for me being born in 1974.