Questa volta abbiamo cercato: [Serious] If being armed with a gun is a constitutional right in America, then why is being armed a valid reason for police to shoot someone?
[Serious] If being armed with a gun is a constitutional right in America, then why is being armed a valid reason for police to shoot someone?
Ed ecco le risposte:
It isn’t.
It’s not a valid reason. Our law enforcement training and accountability is just atrocious.
It’s being perceived as a threat to their own life or others which usually involves being armed in some way. Plenty of people get pulled over for traffic violations and disclose their weapon and aren’t shot for being armed.
It’s not in my opinion. If they were using the gun to threaten others then yeah, that’s another story. But just owning one is never a good enough reason to get shot.
The second amendment doesn’t actually protect your right to physically have a gun on you whenever you go.
Right to bear arms isn’t what the amendment says. It’s the right to bear arms (and form a militia if needed)
to protect you land and property against a tyrannical government. Meaning were allowed to fight back if the government stops being for the people and try to take it.
Assholes in the government and the NRA convinced people it’s just about owning guns for hunting and fun so that when the government fucks up (surprise, often) we don’t defend ourselves.
The whole carry guns whenever where ever you want is just not what the second amendment is about, it’s used to divide the two parties and get us riled up with each other.
We’re supposed to own guns to prevent the government fucking us. Not to get a sandwich at subway.