If you don't support the 2nd Amendment take a moment ask yourself what you really think about the following:
Law Enforcement/Security
Law Enforcement/Security either won't be present when Jihadists come for you or likely ambushed during the first moments. Your best chance lies with an armed citizen willing to defend himself and therefore you. Are you willing to wait for Law Enforcement, depend on a part time possibly unarmed Security guard or do you want at least the potential of some lawfully armed citizen(s) there and able to defend you? Or maybe you think you'll be safe in a Gun Free Zone when Jihadists come for you? It seems the Jihadists think they are safer in the Gun Free Zones themselves since that's where they usually appear.
5 or 50 or 500 rounds
There's been millions and millions of "Assault Weapons" produced since WWII; some say over 100 million AK-47s alone. Many, many, many millions more high capacity magazines than that. Do you really believe when Jihadists come for you they won't have both? Do you want your citizen defenders to have fewer than, only as many or more high capacity magazines available when Jihadists come for you? Or put another way, would you prefer your citizen defenders have 5 or 50 or 500 rounds to defend you with?
7 or 70 or 700 rounds per minute
Some claim Assault Weapons fire 700 rounds per minute like that's reality. Reality is even trained personnel can't change magazines fast enough to maintain anywhere near that rate of fire. But when Jihadists come for you would you rather your citizen defenders have 7, 70 or 700 rounds per minute capability to defend you with?
Less or equal or better weapon
Some claim the 2nd Amendment only covers smooth bore single shot muskets in use when the Constitution was written. Weapons that won't produce accurate fire at a rate fast enough to make ANY difference in your defense. When Jihadists come for you do you want your citizen defenders to have less capable, as capable or more capable weapons to defend you with? Some claim Assault Weapons are too "powerful" for mere citizens. When Jihadists come for you do you want your citizen defenders to have less powerful, as powerful or more powerful weapons to defend you with?
We don't know how many government agents follow the terrorist watch lists but say 500 agents. We don't know their case load but say 20 cases. That's possibly 10,000 on the watch lists already but likely many more than that. Most of the latest Jihadists weren't even considered dangerous enough to make these watch lists. Consider that in your answers to the questions.
Most Conservatives support the PUBLIC having the best equipment available to defend themselves. Most Liberals want the best available also. But just for THEM, not when the 10,000 Jihadists come for YOU.
