I'm sure he feels there should be special exceptions:
If you are old and feeble.
If you express views that some crazy gun-people might disagree with.
If you're a "lawmaker."
He should just defend the 2nd Amendment which allows guns for:
Protecting oneself if you're young and female--outnumbered, weak, small, being attacked, have no alternative, for crime prevention, a clothing accessory, hunting, protection of others, as an equalizer (individuals or groups), or just because and any other reason as long as you don't prove to be someone who misuses a gun to violate someone else's rights.
I'm not sure why he has any greater need for a gun than someone living in Oakland, Chicago, or New York. The principle's the same: we have a right to self-defense.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: