This is a subject I should stay out of but I can't.
2d Amendment: There is no need for the 2d Amendment to address sporting arms and ammo. The Sup Ct in the recent Heller and MacDonald cases held that individuals are entitled to own and possess firearms for self defense (and other reasons). It doesn't matter what type of firearm it is so long as it is the type traditionally used for that purpose, eg rifle, shotgun, handgun, etc. It can't be a RPG.
Law enforcement: Here is where I'll really get in trouble if my words are misconstrued. Why can LEOs wear a vest and citizens cannot. We can't protect ourselves in the same fashion? Generally, law enforcement cannot protect us from say a home invasion unless they are posted at our front doors. All they can do is investigate the crime once it happens and hopefully catch the criminal. Now I don't believe many of us would wear a vest in our homes, but who is to say we cannot?
The militarization of law enforcement is concerning. At a duck hunt this season, a federal officer showed up in a vest with all sorts of different weapons hanging all over him. To do what? Protect himself against a bunch of duck hunters with bird shot? It is nothing more than intimination in my view.
The gov't wants all the goodies. it will tell you it is for our security. The more freedom we give up for the sake of security, the less we will have of both.
|