Rioting: What’s the point?

The article is about the riots that took place in Baltimore last night and will likely continue. What’s the point?

I understand people are angry, upset, or frustrated, but is that cause enough to burn, loot, and destroy?

It’s like the riots after the verdict in the Michael Brown case or the Eric Garner case. Protesting in such a violent way does not solve anything. All it does is it leaves a city in ruins and causes numerous injuries or unnecessary deaths.

During the St. Louis protests over Michael Brown, I saw one protestor on the news say something to the effect that sometimes you have to get attention and this is the only way to get attention. Seriously?!!

The work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished a lot in his time and he NEVER used violence. In fact, if peaceful marches or protests began getting violent, King would remove himself from the situation.

There is never a need to burn a business down just because of a disagreement. That person, or persons, should be held accountable, because all that happened was another life hurt by the destruction of his or her business.

The riots in Baltimore have caused not only physical damage but now have postponed baseball, America’s past time, yet again.

Everyone just needs to take a chill pill and chill out. There are many ways instead of violence to let your voices be heard and resolve differences.

That’s my take on the situation. I now return you to your regularly scheduled activities.

2nd Amendment thoughts….

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That is what the 2nd Amendment says. It seems that a lot of people either don’t know that or don’t care. How many people are actually members of a well-regulated militia? I have no problem with people owning guns for protection, sport, or hunting, but I don’t think the average person needs machine guns, attack or assault rifles to hunt. Those should be for military and some law enforcement. Any type of gun legislation that has been proposed, or has yet to be proposed, is denying individuals to own guns.

It seems some people are acting as if the government and any type of gun legislation are making it illegal to own any type of gun and trying to ban all guns. That does not appear to be the case. The amendment does not clarify what kinds of guns are allowed for citizens to own, so if you have some types of guns (i.e. hand guns or hunting rifles), be happy with what you have.

There still seems to be much gun violence today. I believe what past legislation was trying to do was to make it more difficult for certain people to obtain guns. Additionally, the legislation would hopefully assist with the immediate access to medical or psychiatric services that people may need, and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun.

Will this stop people from getting guns? Maybe not, but perhaps it will be more difficult for the wrong person to get a gun. Will it help with the guns that are already out there? Maybe, maybe not, but hopefully it will help regulate illegal firearms and such and perhaps allow the tracking of such weapons easier. Because, as mentioned, the amendment does not specify what type of firearm an individual can have.

Yes, we all want to deter and stop violence. But as I heard this that there are a higher percentage of murders by knives and other weapons that guns. Why not get to the root of the problem with violence? In order to understand violent acts, we need to understand the people committing these atrocities. That is why it is important to have background checks, make psychiatric and mental health more accessible so that people that need it can get it. I think it’s common sense.

So think about that before you post some other insane comment or picture that the government is denying you your 2nd Amendment rights, because, in reality, I don’t believe they are.