“The best way to stop the remaining cases is to allow potential victims to be armed.”
There is so much wrong with this statement.
We need to take back the conversation. Forcefully if needed.
No one can “allow” you a Constitutional right.
I wonder if any “victims” have ever sued a municipality because they were unable to defend themselves?
“I wonder if any “victims†have ever sued a municipality because they were unable to defend themselves?”
Isn’t that what Heller was about?
Pedantic semantics won’t help as much as general agreement at this point. They’re finally on the right side of the line, don’t scare ‘em away. Get ‘em used to the idea of armed citizenry, _then_ work on “it’s not your call”.
The difference is what turned Starbucks from tolerant of armed customers to pissed off & prohibiting them: people who wouldn’t let a win be, to wit sore winners.
My wife was always afraid of guns but this weekend she bought one. She said was tired of being afraid.