> It wasn't a militia. *General* militia, all able bodied men, and he was there doing exactly what the cops wouldn't do: attempting to prevent arson, looting, and violence. > He was a teen running around with a gun Negative, he showed excellent grouping, trigger control, and only hit those who attacked, a demonstration of the amount of skill and practice that goes into firearm discipline, especially considering the amount of people present. > where he had no business being Negative. He was invited there, worked in the same area, and had friends who owned property there. And more generally, he has, like everyone, the right to free movement. > He wasn't hired for security, He was invited for just that. > he lives in another state literally a few miles across state lines, and he works there. > the gun was bought for him because he couldn't legally buy it this is probably the only accurate claim you've made so far, and I'm dubious even on that. 'legally' is not the same as 'lawfully'. The same way while it was 'legal' for the state to issue a curfew, it was likely an *unlawful* infringement on freedom of travel and first amendment. People don't lose their right to protest, just because other groups, or even the majority, are rioting. This likewise applies to people responding to and defending against, a riot. "legal" is not the same as "lawful". He lawfully could and should have owned that firearm. > , if he'd kept his ass at home If the arsonists and bolsheviks had kept their ass at home, instead of assaulting a young man for putting out a fire, those rioters would not be being beaten by cops, maced, arrested, and shot by citizens. > and his parents took an interest in their kid It looks like his parents took a keen interest in him and raised him well. Which from what I gather is not the case for gimpy the one-armed wonder.