What’s being described by me as vigilantism.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You are describing lawless violence while simultaneously talking about the constitution which doesn’t protect people against such violence. Please i ask this nicely don’t bring ability to discern to the table. Please
Ok…it is obvious…you’re purposefully not distinguishing between the two.
What does have to do with the violence that they will engage in? The second protects the right to bear arms not to shoot people in self defense. The right to be secure in one’s property is another amendment. You’d probably know that but that requires reading it. But more importantly it doesn’t protect it against non government actors. In fact there is no protections against their action other than those found in criminal law.
Comprende?
Then don’t use vigilantism. Self defense isn’t vigilantism. You wrote the word not me
The right to bear arm isn’t the right to defense of oneself. Are you lost? No seriously.
Alrighty then…we’re now on the same page. Cheers. 
Good now let’s go back to the saying that words mean things. Use them correctly you won’t get an argument.
Yeah…I’d have left off “being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” too. It destroys your post.
Free state has nothing to do with personal defense
You are entering a very silly territory. But ok go on.
I
Incorrect.
Fine self defense against the government. Is that what you mean?
Nahhhhhhhhh…we’re done with your foolishness.
1 Like
Korean store owners in LA.
Self defense. Period.
And guardian angels and as @zantax pointed out the Detroit 300.
Two of those worked with the government. Korean store owners took it to the next level.
Right. That’s what i thought.
They were taken to the next level. King had armed people in the woods along the route of his marches.
You wrote you wanted them to act within the the bounds of the constitution. They are not bound by the constitution as they are not government actors. You managed to deflect into silly ness but that’s what this discussion was.
