NFL players can go protest on their time — off the premises of their work place. You do not have the right to “first amendment” in the workplace— especially when you are insulting the majority of the customers.
Probably 2/3rds or more of the population agrees that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms. So that's not what's at issue. What is at issue is what kinds of arms and whether they should be tracked. And once that's determined what kind of controls are necessary to make the rules effective. The question we should be asking ourselves is why do these "second Amendment" articles keep cropping up. These kinds of articles are typical NRA tripe trying to get folks to think that the issue is the Second Amendment. It Isn't of course. Absolutely no politician is advocating repeal of the second Amendment. These second amendment articles are for the most part yellow journalism, i.e., pure political garbage and subterfuge . There point is to misdirect and get people to think that it is the second amendment that is being attacked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Use your head don't fall for it. The Ball player quoted is himself a victim of this subterfuge promoted and encouraged by the NRA. And it isn't the NRA's membership that is the culprit, it's the NRA leadership that has learned how to clean-up financially by promoting their false and divisive message.
Are you sure of that? Plenty of politicians have called for seizing guns - which is essentially the same thing. Not to mention the below: Forget former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and his eyebrow-raising call for a repeal of the Second Amendment. Fully 21 percent of Americans think the same way. That’s according to a poll taken back in February by the Economist/YouGov.
It's up to the NFL whether to allow the protest or not. It isn't up to the NFL to consider it free speech or not. The courts decide that, and it has already been decided that actions you take while at work are decided based on corporate citizenship prerogative, not free speech. Said another way, so you can understand it, you cannot say whatever you want at the office and be defended by free speech.
Your concerns are overblown. A blanket seizure of all guns would violate the second amendment. An outlaw government could try to do that regardless of whether there is a second amendment, or even a constitution for that matter. It is not a realistic concern at present. I would guess, from my casual observations, that 21 percent figure is about right. Even if that number grows rather dramatically, our second amendment is secure. If the NRA leadership, however, persists on being what seems unreasonable to most of the population, including many NRA members, there is going to be a backlash. This won't be a threat to the second Amendment, but it will mean that gun restrictions are going to end up tighter than they otherwise might have been. We've got a first taste of that already in Florida. Those lunatics at the top of the NRA* have figured out how to turn a false argument into a personal financial bonanza. Although those halfwits are the gun industry's stalwarts, they certainly are not doing anything for the general membership. Good leadership in the organization would be proactive in proposing realistic and universally enforceable gun laws that everyone, including the gun industry, could live with. There is going to have to be compromise, why not get it over with? I think I know why. It has to do with money; not common sense or the best interests of gun owners. You're a member, right? Why not dump those loonies running the show, and put some new leadership in charge? __________________ *Possibly the situation at the top of NRA will take care of itself via the Mueller investigation.
You'll pardon me if I discard your advice and remain vigilant. After all, you come from the party that is trying to push the narrative - and you, yourself, are on record here for calling for Canadian gun control laws in America.