Kamala has made it clear what she thinks of the right to bear arms and the right to protect oneself. What I don't get is the lack of understanding when it comes to law-abiding citizens and criminals who break the laws that are already in place. What politicians do is ignore the fact that the more laws we put into place for things, the more we are just hurting the common law-abiding citizen and not stopping criminals from acting and hurting more people.

For example, the Constitution makes it clear that "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." This is the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These two amendments are the two most divisive in this two-party system.

The protestors wanted to have Trump removed from office on the claim that Donald Trump is acting against the American people's interests and the U.S. Constitution. In reality, the people's interests do not come over the Constitution, or the Constitution in reality means nothing but a way to have more power and control. The First Amendment allows you to speak freely against people, government, etc, without the threat of arrest. The Second Amendment can be viewed as insurance to make sure we keep our rights and protect them. But what if one party is taking away the right to protect yourself from foreign and domestic threats by using emotions to gain the "American interest?" 

Kamala Harris stated, “I feel very strongly that it’s consistent with the Second Amendment to say we need an assault weapons ban. They’re literally tools of war, they were literally designed to kill a lot of people quickly.” "Do you know what an assault weapon is?" she asked, continuing: "It was designed for a specific purpose: to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society." Another statement she made, "Why should anyone be able to buy a weapon that can kill other human beings without at least knowing, 'Hey, has that person committed a violent crime before? Are they a threat against themselves or others? That's just reasonable,"

Banning what she knows as "Assault Weapons" is a dangerous term to use, considering that not only guns can be used to "assault people." We also see these politicians come out only after a tragic event takes place. like a murder or a shooting. One side says we need to be able to protect ourselves, the other side says that we need to ban these so-called "assault weapons." Which is better? Is banning guns the solution, or is making sure these weapons don't get into the hands of criminals a better approach to this issue of violence? Should we take away what protects the law-abiding citizen from criminals who do evil and make them defenseless in the name of safety? If the criminal is at fault for breaking the law either way, how is it fair to punish the law-abiding citizen in the end? 

When I asked myself these questions, I came to the conclusion that those who claim we must get rid of the "assault weapons" completely in the name of peace are nothing more than doing the oldest trick in politics. providing governmental help, security, and peace for safety. The Government will protect you if it promises to prosecute these criminals. There is no need to have "assault weapons" because the Government Is here to help and keep you safe. 

Let's also not forget that the only people I have heard make threats or call for violence more often against political opponents have been democrats and the left. On the right, we want them to be arrested and sentenced for the crimes they have committed. There's a huge difference when it comes to justice and how to pursue justice in the name of fairness. I can not put into writing the things I have heard. But these are the same people calling for gun control. I guess they want gun control in order to protect others from themselves.