As we proceed into an exciting new year and a potentially game-changing presidential administration, we find ourselves wading into new territory that raises challenging questions about our beliefs and ideas.
This of course isn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, the mark of a good idea is that it has been subjected to numerous challenges and still remains intact. In fact, this is the essence of conservativism, respecting solid ideas that have stood the test of time while discarding ones that have been shown to be unfounded or dangerous. It is for this reason that we should be constantly evaluating the efficacy of our positions.
If we do not, we run the very serious risk of boxing ourselves into contradictory positions when two or more of our stances conflict with each other and giving a chance to characterize conservativism as a whole as the product of muddled thinking.
Turn to the next page for more info:
No make the gunmen responsible. What is wrong were with putting the responsibility on the perpetrators?
How the he’ll are they liable ignorant mfs.
Good
Doug Boales No one should be forced to bake a cake either
That’s b******t
Read the dam piece . You dumb$#%&!@* S.
I also think that if any member of my family and have harm come to us and we are not able to protect ourselves because of laws and government then we should be able to sue the government and or store owner for not protecting us.
Bs
It’s not the stores fault they have a right to protect their lives an property
For those who failed to read or failed to understand the article, the only people who could sue the business would be CHL holders, Concealed handgun licensees. The business prevented them from carrying protection into the business and so they were denied the opportunity to defend themselves. All the unarmed, unlicensed victims would NOT be able to sue. They were always going to be a victim by their own choice.