2nd-vid.aspx

I don't mind his views, and on some of his points, they are valid. What got me was instead of hammering in one hard point (mass school shootings), he starts off with the hammer and instead of driving home the nail, he begins to play wack a mole. He should've stuck to the mass school shootings as a single means of getting his point home (being it just happened, and the FL Gov just signed a new law), so he had the strength to keep the initial point strong. He talks about governments disarming the populace and telling them "they are the SOLE means to protect you". Does he realize he's not helping himself with that comment? No one is? The governments who have done that in the past, and now, use the police as their means to do that. In some, the police and the military are blended. How many various LEO's are there federally, then in each state? Since there is not accurate number, the government becomes the "de facto" protector of the populace. In some cases rendering 2A to the interpretation of those who are charged to "protect the masses". I'm curious how in the hell can you "test" to see if gun free zones actually work? How does one test success or failure? Judging by the latest "tests", I'd say they're a failure. Is placing more weapons in there the answer? Just had one teacher go "HAM" at a school with his own weapon.

We need more debate. Just not more "debate" from politicians who have a "master" to "serve".

Dang I was going to donate but I am a contractor.