Given the news
flow and count of incidents where our government simply fails through malfeasance and misfeasance to do that which is not only a matter of common sense but is actually required by law, and there has never once been a single government employee or official prosecuted, stripped of their office and benefits or imprisoned for same, even when the duty to perform is in fact set forward by law, I am now of the opinion that the Second Amendment has no exceptions as to persons whatsoever, except for a person who is currently under active court supervision (e.g. between arrest and trial, post-trial up to the termination of probation or parole, or under active mental supervision as directed by a court under due process of law.)
Yes, that includes felons, even violent felons, so long as they have served their sentences in full.
The simple answer is The Second Amendment says so; it makes no exceptions.
The more-complicated answer is that it is clear by the manifest weight of the evidence that the government will not hold anyone to account when they fail to enforce laws and as a direct and proximate consequence people die at the hands of violent criminals, whether their motivation is insanity or something more-nefarious. Further, it is clear by the manifest weight of the evidence that violent felons are not deterred by laws criminalizing acquisition and ownership of weapons (of which there are more than 40,000 on the books at present) but certainly are deterred, sometimes terminally and justifiably so, through ownership and carrying of firearms by law-abiding civilians.
Obviously someone cannot deter a violent felon with a gun unless said person has a gun on them at the time.
I can go on and on and on but when it comes to mass-shootings and terrorist incidents you're left with one overriding reality: The government never brings charges of any sort against those who were grossly negligent or even active enablers (e.g. "Fast-n-Furious") if they are in any way employed by any government instrumentality. Thus, despite whatever "laws" are allegedly there and allegedly provide "duties" they're nothing more than mere suggestions.
The logical and honest individual is thus left with no alternative but to refuse to allow, support or defend any restrictions on carry and mere possession of firearms. I can and still do, of course, defend and fully support laws criminalizing abusive use of weapons, whether that abuse be brandishing, assault or worse.
Do any of those things and you both can and should go straight to jail -- period.
But mere carry, no matter where you are and under what circumstance, whether concealed or openly with your weapon visible to ordinary sight, ought to be encouraged and must be fully supported under the law. This means immediate repeal of all alleged laws contrary to the Second Amendment including those requiring permits, excepting only a handful of places of official business such as court houses and, of course, the visiting areas of jails.
Other than that? Sorry, but no.
Not after Texas.
No thinking American can accept any such constraint for one second more, and if Donald Trump is actually a "Swamp Drainer" then he must immediately formulate and sign an Executive Order implementing same while formal repeal and incorporation under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments is forced through Congress, which he must insist occur or he will veto every single bill that reaches his desk until that law is passed and will pardon all persons convicted of or arrested for non-violent federal firearms "offenses."
It's clear that our government units, whether they be state, local or federal, will not only fail to do their jobs they will also fail to accept accountability when they don't and as a result people are either being injured or killed. So-called "law enforcement" organizations have defined themselves not as "peace keepers" or "police officers" but rather as janitors who are willing to clean up a mess after the fact but will not discharge their duties, even when required by law, either in advance of or during an incident. In addition there simply aren't enough cops nor can there ever be enough cops to provide meaningful security against those who the government willfully and intentionally ignores despite knowing on a factual basis that they're dangerous.
This means that the only definition of First Responder that is other than a lethally-bad joke or a tool of extortion via ever-higher taxes is you, and as a consequence it is clear that you must be free to provide for your own security and those who you love all of the time, irrespective of where you are, subject to prosecution only if your use of said tools is intentionally or negligently abusive toward others' safety.