On the contrary, he disliked it because he believed it would inevitably lead to government policy trying to get as close as possible to doing something unconstitutional without actually do it.
I dunno. Call me a nutjob all you want, but I actually don't oppose the second amendment all that much. Racial violence and crooked cops may suck, but it's nothing on the scale of what oppressive governments can do.
Like the fact that any attempt to implement safeguards being outright rejected as a brutal attack on our rights as humans is absurd.
At a certain point repealing it becomes preferable because if you aren't allowed to properly regulate the trade of weapons within reason, you've got a serious issue.
Real talk, California gun laws are considered 'strict' because we require rifles with detachable magazines to have a system in place to make reloading take slightly longer. For example, a cover over the button that drops out the magazine that requires a 'tool' to lift. The tool can of course just be a spare bullet. How strict!
There's such a boner for guns that it's somehow become a part of our national identity. It boggles my mind.
I don't have a problem with responsible people owning guns but the fact that we're averaging like one mass shooting a week shows that we need stricter restrictions on them. And somehow people think that means the G-Men are going to bust down their doors and take away their licenced firearms. It's absurd.
Everyone who owns a gun should be required by law to shoot at one other person who owns a gun. whoever lives is the better Gunman and can keep his gun.
Everyone who owns a gun should be required by law to shoot at one other person who owns a gun. whoever lives is the better Gunman and can keep his gun.