Comments by "Tango Nevada" (@TangoNevada) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's the key phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That is fine. But that is not how and why people are gathering guns. All these individuals are in no way shape or form a well regulated militia. They are an unregulated mob and a collections of individuals. And they aren't bearing arms to secure a free state. Many are bearing and uses these Arms to kill minorities they have disagreements with. The 2nd Amendment as Written is fine, but as it's being applied is completely different. Also, it's an Amendment already. So it can be changed. We repealed the 18th Amendment, we can repeal and rewrite the 2nd Amendment too. So just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean it's carved in stone, and born right and can not be changed. If enough people want, it can be changed. I know this is a right winged audience, so I don't anticipate any positive response to this. But it's true.
That being said, I am not even Anti Gun. If you want to hunt and have a gun to protect your family that is fine. But if people don't see how and why it's gone too far they are just worried that any change will lead to no guns at all. And I don't support that. No one needs an AR15 or similar gun, just like no one needs or can buy a RPG or own an operational tank. There should be limits to what we consider a "Gun" under the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment can stay, but we need to reclassify a gun for hunting and protection vs a Weapon on War.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3