Second Amendment Roundup: Wolford and the government security principle for sensitive places
Politics
United States
Started January 21, 2026
If a place is truly “sensitive,” the state must provide armed security
Source Articles
Second Amendment Roundup: Wolford and the government security principle for sensitive places
Reason (United States) | Jan 21, 2026
🗳️ Be one of the first to share your view
5 statements to vote on • Your perspective matters
📊 Progress to Consensus Analysis
Need: 7+ statements, 50+ votes
Statements
5/7
Total Votes
0/50
💡 Keep voting and adding statements to unlock consensus insights
You're voting anonymously
Your votes are stored locally in your browser. Create an account to have your votes included in consensus analysis.
CLAIM
Posted by will
•
Jan 21, 2026
Government-funded armed security in sensitive areas can effectively deter violence and create a safer environment for all members of the community.
0 total votes
CLAIM
Posted by will
•
Jan 21, 2026
The government should prioritize armed security in sensitive places to ensure the safety of citizens and protect their rights under the Second Amendment.
0 total votes
CLAIM
Posted by will
•
Jan 21, 2026
Requiring armed security in sensitive locations undermines personal responsibility and the right to bear arms, leading to a culture of dependence on the state.
0 total votes
CLAIM
Posted by will
•
Jan 21, 2026
Implementing armed security in sensitive places could escalate tensions and create an atmosphere of fear rather than safety for the public.
0 total votes
CLAIM
Posted by will
•
Jan 21, 2026
The definition of 'sensitive places' is subjective; a clear and consistent standard is needed to balance security with Second Amendment rights.
0 total votes
💡 How This Works
- • Add Statements: Post claims or questions (10-500 characters)
- • Vote: Agree, Disagree, or Unsure on each statement
- • Respond: Add detailed pro/con responses with evidence
- • Consensus: After enough participation, analysis reveals opinion groups and areas of agreement