[More]
Gun rights leaders and legal scholars could be identified and nominated to analyze and prioritize bills, lawsuits, regulations, opportunities, and threats, to advise on judicial and other federal nominees, and to help educate the public. The Office would provide a way for the public to express their concerns and to offer ideas and suggestions, meaning gun owners would have a conduit.
[Via Antigone]
And since 2A is “indispensable” in protecting oneself and community.
Doesn’t that include our hearing?
For the government to be able to exclude part of your body from defense seems beyond arrogance.
I already have a quibble with the first sentence, which purports that the Second Amendment “establishes” the RKBA for Americans. You know, as opposed to, “recognizes” or something like that. Am I being too pedantic?
Does this belong here?
Henry
Of course, looking at the bigger picture, everything in the Bill of Rights is a guarantee AGAINST the government… so any government office formed to “protect rights” is at best hopelessly conflicted and at worse a false flag designed to destroy them.
(To those who want to know how the latter works, look up Germany’s “Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution” (BfV), a bureau busily insisting that the MAGA-like AfD Party, which has now grown to 40% of the vote, must be outlawed “to save democracy.”)