Safety for the rich ONLY

...While blaming the left wing for right-wing violence.

...while wearing lapel and tie pins in the shape of AR15s.
- Lapel/tie pins? It's like they aren't even taking it seriously.
  
  Image sources: CBS and NPR articles from 28 February and 1 March 2018.
Sorry betterdeadthanreddit. Gonna have to cancel you for this radical left wing comment. We’ll be seeing you in ANTIFA jail!
- Sound like less of a punishment and more of a networking opportunity.
I just want you to know. I saw the amount of up votes and decided not to add one.
Nice

When they move away from that bulletproof glass they get into armored cars escorted by a small army of security guards.

I've seen members of parliament walking down the street like a normal person on multiple occasions.
Unless you're a front bench minister, there's probably very little risk to your safety (for now, anyway).
Though, I suppose this is a natural outcome when you're the hegemonic power of the world, much more incentive to kill politicans there (the USA)
It's quite foreign to me though, luckily.
I'm from Australia, by the way.

No school kids there I see, they're still the targets

...for companies selling very expensive stuff
instead of, you know, doing the obvious thing: restrict gun rights
but no, we must think of the kids! ...our future customers
Just shield Yourselves with children, You don't care about them anyway.
- Shielding ourselves with kids sounds like a Musky idea.

Same with gun control legislation, it never applies to the rich or former cops.

Safety for the rich ONLY

Hmm... this makes me wonder what gun rights people think about bulletproof materials, in general. Surely, they have to be in favor of them, because otherwise, they can't defend themselves from people who wield the guns that they support.

But in that case, wouldn't that imply that they'd be fine if everybody was always outfitted head-to-toe in bulletproof armor?

But if they allowed everybody to be completely bulletproof (I'm imagining a better bulletproof armor than exists in reality here), then there would be no purpose to being in favor of guns, since guns couldn't be used to hurt anybody.

I'm talking about the second amendment types who think their right to bear arms is because they can be used against people. Obviously, people who just like hunting or target shooting or collecting guns could have different views.

But the point is, a 2A guns rights person must really, like OP said, only support limited use of bulletproof materials. It's sort of an inherent hypocrisy to these people. Well, either that, or they're against bulletproof materials and are just okay with dying for their beliefs.

Disarming ourselves, while the fascists are fascing.
It's a bold move, Cotton.
- I am one of those people who tries to base their opinions on evidence. When I look at the world today, the places with strict gun control also seem to be doing better at warding off fascism. I don't see any evidence that the immense number of guns in America have slowed the spread of fascism, at all, or see any hints that they'll be a major factor in defeating fascism in the future.
Gun Rights person here. Bullet Proof materials are great. Body armor is a valid personal choice. Police/soldiers have access to armor piercing ammo so your third sentence doesn't track. (Bans on civilian ownership of armor-piercing ammo is unethical)
- Honest question, is part of your motivation for upholding 2A rights the ability to overthrow the government? Because I find that one hard to fathom; could the US Gov really be overthrown? Is it based on the premise that lots of people in the military / drone operators would be part of the militia?
They aren’t called gun nuts for nothing.
Safety for the rich ONLY
That's why they hate Luigi

Well phrased. A first-grader will understand that there's something wrong here.

A little more simplification and it might just be accessible to the average red state voter.

Yep, nothing to see here folks

Ill probably make this its own post but id love to hear a solution to this problem.

Cops busting down everyone's doors and ransacking their home for weapons doesn't seem like something we want. Plus, they will remove minorities defenses first, as usual, if laws get passed.

There really is no solution.

Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't envision the nation having a voting majority of morons who vote in other morons into power, but alas here we are.
But I do think their intentions were for wealthy white landowners to mostly be in control and have checks in place to stop morons from ever having a majority but that crumbled away over a few generations.
- Actually, they did. The framers of the constitution didn't trust voters. There's a lot of indications, they thought voters were idiots. I find it hard to argue they were wrong.

Looks expensive.

At least they learnt from their mistakes.

You're so close to getting it.

Take this, and apply it to literally everything.

Money, food, houses, stability, security, soon even food, clean water, etc. All for them. To own it all. To control it all. To extract profit from all of us.

You’re so close to getting it.
... implying I don't already get it?
- Well then good. My mistake.