You are defending the right for every citizen, never convicted of a major crime, to commit atrocities with whatever weapon of war or means of killing humans that humankind can devise. Of course that right goes up to the split second when the atrocity using that tool actually begins. Then a victim or mass victims are deprived of their right to life in the name of preserving the liberty of the few who want unfettered access to a killing tool being a higher right than the very right to life by all.
Your individual rights argument is so weak and absurd that you must accuse those who oppose you even by minor degree of being communists.
And you are a fraud because if individual possession and unfettered access to killing tools is higher than the right life itself then you must demand access to all and any killing tool ever invented. But you shy away from such a demand because you are a fraud. You’ve become increasing absurd and obsessed about guns over the decades. You consent to not having access to possession, not bearing most arms, such as an attack helicopter or plastic explosives to blow up the bridge leading to your town before the commies can cross to kill and oppress you.
Your highest and most sacred “gun” right that is higher and more sacred than the very right to life of a ten year old, stops at a very low threshold of “human killing” tools available thanks to modern technology.
Your sacred right is limited and you have consented to the limit. Therefore you have consented already that society has a right to draw the lines on access and to regulate human killing tools in the hands of the individual. And most in society want the line moved closer to something more protective of ten year olds in school who have a right to grow up. Its not a Commie plot.
Anybody that votes Democrat is a comme, they're just too stupid to know it. To support my point, I invite you to visit the US Communist party website. Read their agenda. There are very few differences between theirs and the Democrat party. Read their praises of candidates like Hillary and DumBama. Read their disdain of candidates like Trump and yes, even Romney or McCain.
You see if the devil comes for your soul, he will not have a cape, fiery red skin, and a tail with an arrowhead at the end. He would likely be a well dressed man, somebody you'd expect on wall street, very coy and of course never tell you why he's there.
I don't defend people who commit heinous crimes. In fact I have always proposed stronger prison sentences for them, unlike commie cities that give them a slap on the hand. This is especially true of crimes committed with guns. But I also don't believe in punishing everybody for the actions of a few. It's as stupid as restricting good drivers because of people who constantly drive drunk. We don't punish the good motorists, we provide harsher penalties for people that drive drunk or high. Because of that, we've greatly reduced intoxicated driving over the past few decades. In fact many people don't even go out on New Years Eve anymore unless they are going to a restaurant or a party at a hotel where they have a room waiting for them.
Every gun is a killing tool. That's what they are designed for. To think if you ban one killing tool it makes all the others less deadly is a stupid conclusion to make. So it's not a choice between allowing kids to be killed over Constitutional rights, it's taking safeguards to protect ourselves and children while protecting those rights at the same time.
Now if you want to address these gun murder problems by giving the offenders much harsher sentences, count me in. If you want to see less children killed by giving federal money to schools for more protection, you have my vote. But I will never support being guilty until proving your innocence, or allowing one or more individuals to make the choice whether you can own a firearm or not base don their unprofssional opinion of an individual.