I mean because after all, if guns are the horrid bane on society that so many people are claiming them to be, why are the lives our leaders, Congress and so many others, including celebrities, protected by that same dreaded "gun"?
I am old enough to remember both the Watts riot in 1965 and the Los Angeles riot of 1992. Aside from the smell of burnt rubber, smoke and the strange "festive" atmosphere that surrounded the "looting", there are other more important images that also burned itself into my brain and my psyche that should also be remembered:
That in 1992, the police withdrew from the area and the residents were left largely to defend themselves with whatever means they had available until the National Guardsmen showed up more than 48 hours later.
That all transportation services were suspended, leaving many residents without the means to leave the areas under attack and being torched.
That in Koreatown, many business owners defended their property from looters by positioning themselves on the buildings roofs and armed themselves with long guns. I can't remember if they were shotguns or rifles but there was plenty of news footage.
So I ask that you consider this: What would happen if rioting broke out simultaneously in several of the large metropolitan areas of the country, the police are outnumbered and have withdrawn, and there aren't enough resources to send the national guardsmen to them all? Or what would happen if our country were attacked again like on 9/11 and everything shuts down like it did then, at least temporarily?
Any legislation drafted that applies only to the citizens of this country but not to those doing the drafting and running of the country, should automatically be viewed with suspicion because in the final analysis, they are never going to allow themselves to be equally as defenseless as the rest of us. It's been written into law.