Arguing vetted non-criminal foreign nationals with established residency in a state have no natural rights sort of pulls the rug out from underneath the founder's intent and erodes our own in my opinion. They were not giving rights they were acknowledging man's God given and/or natural rights. One of those being the right to self-defense.
So in this new country those natural rights were going to be acknowledged and not be infringed upon. A foreign national has the exact same natural rights as any of us regardless if their country of home origin acknowledges them or not.
In arguing against it we are essentially saying we don't have natural rights and government grants those rights versus acknowledges them and pledges not to infringe upon them. A very slippery slope if you ask me.
It strikes me as a rather liberal argument to be focusing on where, why, and how he got the gun. Don't we always say evil will find a way regardless of laws on the books?
I'm more angered that a Naval Academy graduate who was a small arms instructor and captain of the rifle team was not deemed responsible or trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm as the officer on deck that day. It's insane. He was on track to be put into the cockpit of a 50 million dollar cannon with wings one day yet stupid policy prevented him from having a sidearm.
He obviously had the courage to fight and it's infuriating to me that he and others were not allowed to have a fighting chance when evil unfortunately came their way.
the right to live free and defend one's self and family are God given for sure.
I want to know, if this bag of crap did the usual allah ackbar before he fired?