What am I missing? Huh? THAT, a myth? Or a fallacious reasoning?
A gun is NEITHER all defensive or all offensive. It is to be defensive when you're being attacked by someone else's guns, or it is to be offensive when you want to use force against peaceful people, right, THUGS? Right, Government and your PERVERTED Laws?
All defensive vs. all offensive? All black vs. all white?
This is just SILLY. If not IDIOTIC. You can DIE drowning in water. So, water is bad?
You can ALSO DIE, dehydrated this time, if you don't get water in 5 days. So, water is good?
How about: water is either BAD or GOOD to sustain life or destroy it?
How about: depends WHEN, HOW, and WHAT FOR you get the water?
Same with: knives, cars, etc.
Cars DO NOT KILL. People driving them, CAN KILL, however, sometimes - using cars. Etc, etc.
Goodness. Now the police think they have found a new hobby : logics and semantics. Still some way to go, I'm afraid, gentlemen...
Back to the point:
THE PEOPLE MUST KEEP THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, DEFENSIVELY - IF NECESSARY, AND THAT'D BE AGAINST ANY POTENTIAL AGGRESSOR - ESPECIALLY THE BIGGEST OF ALL : GOVERNMENT.
What is so difficult to understand in A TWO LINE SECOND AMENDMENT?
Maybe some in the police should start by reading it - there is NOWHERE WRITTEN "the right to bear DEFENSIVE arms" or "OFFENSIVE arms" used in there:
Do some in the police have HALLUCINATIONS?
Or IS IT ME?
The Dumbing Down of Western Civilization, including the USA, by statist propaganda.
There you have it.
I propose a ZERO-th Amendment :
the right for law enforcement TO USE THEIR BRAINS, too.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff. I care quite a bit about language.
Did you know? 1,299,830,899,481 can be factored in no more than 55,655 steps.