Again it's like saying you can own a car but you can't keep gas in it. This argument that it isn't infringing on a right is just wrong.

 

I can respect if some of you just come out and say you are fine with with the infringement on this issue. But outright try and tell me this isn't an infringement is just silly it's obvious.

 

So, is that a "not gonna happen" to actually answering the question asked? :idunno:

Again it's like saying you can own a car but you can't keep gas in it. This argument that it isn't infringing on a right is just wrong.

 

I can respect if some of you just come out and say you are fine with with the infringement on this issue. But outright try and tell me this isn't an infringement is just silly it's obvious.

 

Nothing is being infringed upon. If keeping a loaded gun is permitted, so be it. If that conflicts with foster care, then they fail to meet the requirement.

And I'm saying the requirement infringes on their rights ? Where did I dispute that this regulation is on the books ? Just because it is regulation it doesn't make it right.

 

To you maybe, not according to the state of Nevada and other people on here. To infringe is to mean they are being prevented to having a loaded gun in the first place. Not the case.

When I first read this by PP92 I thought it was a bad analogy. After thinking further, I think it is a very good one.

 

Legal Right

 

You have the right to drive a car if properly licensed.

You have the right to concealed carry if properly licensed.

 

Added Risk

 

In driving, being under the influence.

In foster care, having children prone to violent acts in your home.

 

Legally Added Protection to Control Risk

 

In driving, DUI laws.

In foster care, higher level of weapons control.

 

After considering that, I agree with the laws that further restrict weapons laws for foster care. There is an added risk that requires additional laws.

 

This couple and others have a choice to make - in order to add to their family, they have to follow a higher level of weapons laws. Choose the weapons or choose the children.

 

Except driving isn't a right. It's a privilige. I think that is the problem some of you are having. There is a huge difference.

 

Then even if it were a right the act of drinking and driving is a crime. Keeping loaded fire arm is not. A government agency which is not an elected body is restricting citizens from participating in a government program based on exercising a constitutional right.

 

I do not have a constitutional right to drive nor to drink and drive.

Not discrimination . Common sense .

 

Then they need to put a ban on knives, ball bats, etc. All are considered deadly weapons.

To you maybe, not according to the state of Nevada and other people on here. To infringe is to mean they are being prevented to having a loaded gun in the first place. Not the case.

 

They are restricting participation in a government program based on exercising a constitutional right.

 

If I told you the only way you could vote is if you promised to give up some of your freedom of religion would you be ok with that ?

 

Or maybe you can get food stamps but only if I restrict your freedom of speech.

So, is that a "not gonna happen" to actually answering the question asked? :idunno:

 

What are you talking about I answered the question multiple times I never dodge questions. Keeping a loaded gun is my right. So restricting my participation in a government program based on exercising said right is an infringement. Pretty simple.

They are restricting participation in a government program based on exercising a constitutional right.

 

If I told you the only way you could vote is if you promised to give up some of your freedom of religion would you be ok with that ?

 

Or maybe you can get food stamps but only if I restrict your freedom of speech.

 

None of the situations you wrote down have anything to do with this case. They are not being forced by the government to give up their 2nd amendment rights in order to foster children. The 2nd amendment is not unlimited. If the government is not taking their guns away, no rights are being fringed upon.

None of the situations you wrote down have anything to do with this case. They are not being forced by the government to give up their 2nd amendment rights in order to foster children. The 2nd amendment is not unlimited. If the government is not taking their guns away, no rights are being fringed upon.

 

Again you are wrong. Why would you own a gun that wasn't loaded. The ability to own a loaded gun is the right.

What are you talking about I answered the question multiple times I never dodge questions. Keeping a loaded gun is my right. So restricting my participation in a government program based on exercising said right is an infringement. Pretty simple.

 

You haven't answered my question. Are you allowed to own a gun and be a foster parent? It's a yes or no question. All the other stuff you keep talking about is irrelevant to the question being asked.

Again you are wrong. Why would you own a gun that wasn't loaded. The ability to own a loaded gun is the right.

 

Their right according to state law, just disqualifies them from fostering children.

Again you are wrong. Why would you own a gun that wasn't loaded. The ability to own a loaded gun is the right.

 

The 2nd amendment specifically states that?

Keeping a loaded gun is my right.

 

Where does it say this?

Fostering kids shouldn't be a "government perk" for the fostering parents... It's about the kids.

 

It shouldn't be but I know two families that pretty much made living off of having foster kids. Ended up adopting most of them and continued to get support until kids hit 18. Neither parent had a wage earning job out side of the house for either family. At 18 most were "Encouraged" to get on with their life...

The 2nd amendment specifically states that?

 

Are you saying that keeping a loaded gun in your house isn't a right ? Your not serious right ? You realize bullets are apart of the right ? I hope you know this.