“After what happened to me in Paris, I know how important it is to be safe and to have armed security,” she explains. “All of my security team is armed, but they also support stricter gun control laws and believe that we should restrict access to firearms for people with mental illness, anyone previously convicted of a misdemeanor, those who have been subject to a temporary restraining order and those at a higher risk of committing gun violence.”
This is the only paragraph that is worth reading. She’s worth saving, because she’s famous for nothing and can afford armed security. And of course it’s OK for her security to be armed! You, on the other hand… you’ll just have to make due. Peasant.
Aside from that… misdemeanors?! Um… I personally have three misdemeanors. All of them were speeding tickets. I don’t know if speeding is a misdemeanor in all 50 states, but it is in NC. So is she advocating for me to lose my right to self defense because I drive a little fast sometimes? How about violent felons, Kim? You didn’t mention them.
And Kim, how do you define mental illness? Are we talking about people like my father in the last year of his life, because I’d get behind that. Or are we going to include people with things like ADHD in mental illness? I have yet to see an explanation as to what mental illnesses should disqualify you from a Constitutional right. I agree, there are some that should. But if you paint it in a broad stroke of “mental illness” with no qualifiers, that’s not alright.
So tell me, Kim. What qualifies you to decide what my rights should and should not be? What qualifies you to decide what is best for me? What qualifies you to decide how I can and cannot defend my life and the lives of those I love?