Protesting police!
Distroying everything in sight. Distroying what belonged to someone else that had not a thing to do with what they were protesting about. Looting everything they could carry. OK. And your federal govement just let it go unchecked. And you think that's ok. Who's side are you on? It seems you are on the fence about 2A. Just what do you think the 2A is about? Here's a clue, it's not about AR's and hunting.
If you wanna keep your guns and what freedom we have, you needing to get off the fence. We give a little, they take a lot. Without the 2A we lose everything.
For one, the riots started when Trump was in office and secondly, it was a local matter. It was up to the people in those cities to decide how to handle the riots. I don't necessarily support their decisions but I understand why they made them. Its not good politics to kill off your citizens. Also, the lawsuits would have bankrupted the cities. Of course, that's one of those bean counter questions. Which would be cheaper for the city, letting them burn businesses or paying off lawsuits for anyone killed by law enforcement? Maybe the lawsuits would have been cheaper but it would still not bode well for them politically. They were screwed regardless of which path they chose.
I don't really think I am on the fence about the 2nd amendment. I just don't know that it protects your right to own whatever firearm you want. There is no stipulation in the 2nd amendment that says criminals can't own guns and yet we try to prevent them from getting them. Is there something in the constitution that says if you are a convicted felon that you aren't protecting by the constitution?
The 2nd amendment says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Its kind of confusing. Shouldn't we be forming militias? Its almost as if they are saying that militias are necessary to the security of a free state and we need to make sure they have guns to do it with otherwise why didn't they split that into 2 sentences or at least put an "and" in between? Are they saying get a gun and join a militia or are they saying get a gun because you might need to join a militia. The problem with the latter is that it isn't exactly well regulated. I would think a well regulated militia is one that is established, not one that was thrown together on the fly. Also, shouldn't we own grenades, rocket launchers, and tanks if we are going to be a part of a militia that is going to defend the free state? That question may seem ridiculous but if you are going to defend your freedom against enemies both foreign and domestic, seems like you need more than just an AR.
I have never actually suggested banning AR's. I have not even suggested making them class III. Did I say I supported changing the age limit? I don't think I did. It may have prevented the last 2 mass shootings but unless it stops them all, why bother, right. I simply pointed out that in the last 20 years, AR's are more affordable, more accessible, and more popular. I know that was a major violation but I could not help myself. Some people like to say video games and movies are responsible and ironically manufacturers of ARs pay to have their guns used in video games and movies. I said there might be some small things we can do that might prevent some of the mass shootings but again its not going to stop all of them so why bother because it has to be all or nothing, right? So keep your thoughts and prayers rubber stamps handy and buy plenty of ink pads. If you don't have one, I am sure they sell them on amazon.
