After all, the 2nd Amendment is written directly to the govt and those that support and control its violent ambitions.
.
When the opposite is true, when a politician, corporation, celebrity, or billionaire speaks out in support of of this 2nd Amendment restriction on the govt, it is taken as “enemy attestation” which bears strong testimony. Why? Because support for it disempowers the speaker. We see this rule of truth-telling with reading historical accounts. When someone who doesn’t benefit from a policy, relationship, or proposition speaks in favor it it, historians give the statement greater truth status. It would be like someone who hates Plato admitting he is a good man. I expect a man who hates Plato to disparage him. But to compliment him? That’s strong stuff and can be trusted as true more than all the disparagement.
