They made me pack the heat, playing cop with no training, to discourage the petty thieves who stole car stereos from the base parking lot. Now they don' want me to be armed to discourage young men who like to beat up nd robe old men. Ah, well. Times change, I guess.

I don't think this post was addressed to you.
I don't think that the author of this OP is interested in watching your movie without some idea of why it has any relevance.
I surely don't.

The essential irrelevance of what you say only becomes more obvious with every reply.

Did it ever occur to you that suggestions on changes to current laws might be needed to actually accomplish anything you want?

Perhaps discussing those changes might be a good idea.

Are you opposed to civilian ownership of firearms?

exercise that right, that's fine with me. I and millions like me will.

he wasn't speaking to you if you are tolerant (or at least sympathetic) of his position.

It's not that hard to figure out; it's like the old saying: if the shoe fits, wear it...

It's when you want to force other citizens to live by your own choices that we have a disagreement.

Oppose all the wars you want to in any way you choose.

But when you start demanding that everybody see and enforce gun control your way, that's a bit totalitarian for some folks taste.

*is* militarism of a sort, just aimed at your neighbor instead of somebody in a foreign country, IMO.

Advocating to change what troops do or do not do abroad, or opposing excessive LE use of force here at home, doesn't compel your neighbor to live by your beliefs. But threatening to put your neighbor in a cage because she or he peaceably chooses differently than you on gun ownership certainly does.

I don't care how you live your life; just live it to the fullest, and don't harm others.

Or do you have something to hide?

You can have one or two for self defense, or 500 and all the ammo you can afford. But I'm progressive that way, I don't mind your business, or try and limit your rights.

Thank you for your service...and carry on. It's your moral obligation to protect yourself....carry on.

for the purpose of scratching their backs?

Oh, you say it's for his protection? What are they protecting (saving)? His life obviously.

You connect the dots...

is full of shit about most things, but this he gets right.

anti-gunners would experience an ecstasy rivaling sexual pleasure to see the govt. round up all of the folks they deride as "ammo-sexuals".

A) those who own firearms for the purpose of personal protection, hunting, or simple target shooting.
B) those who love the prospect of the govt jack boot coming down on the necks of those who who won't submit

You seem to want to equate those in group A with those who are breaking the law. And, as I alluded to previously, I suspect that the folks who label those with whom they disagree on the 2A as "ammosexuals", are actually projecting their own sexual fantasies (let's call them "GovtControlSexuals&quot . Its kind of sad really.

Btw - I don't know what the bottom two videos are depicting, they seem to be important to you however...

GovtControlSexuals had a happy ending to see him get his.

And again, I hope you don't think it is legitimate to lump all supporters of the 2A in with this guy - do you?

The guy doesn't have a rifle. He has a Sagia 12 shotgun based on the Kalashnikov design. The BLM is out of his range. Assuming he were to hit anyone, he would probably hit the protesters. That is one of the things that puzzles me about the two photos of this guy.

Wouldn't be the first time.

even if he had a rifle, he had a clearer shot at the pro Bundy protesters, or one of their horses.