Are officers some special sort of animal that they should have rifles and citizens should not? Not sure what you're trying to state here. Yes rifles are dangerous and extend the kill zone as you state it. The same applied to the British 250 years ago as it also did to the FBI sniper who shot and killed Vicki Weaver while unarmed and with a child in her arms.
Just read your posts so I guess I'm not just-in-time? The 2nd amendment does not actually refer to individual rights at all as written. It clearly says you have a right to bear arms
in a well-organized militia. It refers to the right of the citizens to form militias, in this case, slave militias. It was added to the constitution as a negotiation to get more states to adopt the document. The supreme court has recently ruled that if you stop an individual's access to arms, they cannot form a militia and therefore you block a constitutional right. BTW, that's why you can still have gun laws, you just can't block access completely.
If I'm not mistaken, Washington freed his slaves when he died. Here is one text on the issue:
Did George Washington Really Free Mount Vernon’s Enslaved Workers? Slavery was inefficient and most plantation owners were fairly poor outside of their property. Many of the founders did not want the institution of slavery at all but knew they could not create the union if they abolished it.
I think insurance is a good thing because right now society has to carry the burden of your "right". Why not have a fund to compensate innocent people who are shot?
I am a gun guy and I love shooting them. I'm not dumb enough to think they are going to save me when Trump comes knocking. It is crazy easy to hit stuff that's 100+ yds away with an AR though. Anyway, I get tired of the silly goofy reasoning from the right. We need to control these weapons.
