Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

 

[OKTexas]

Asswipe Dimms will eventually hold Stanley Tools civilly liable for hammer murders.

Great, then I can go after Toyota for the bitch that ran a red light and hit me.

.

 

[Coyote]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

 

[martybegan]

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights

Sure, just as soon as you join that "well regulated Militia".

Also how do you know what the Democratic party platform will be in 10,000 years?

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

Is the militia different than the state police force? If so, how?

The militia was the State's "army". The concern at the creation of the Constitution is that the Federal government would not allow States to keep their standing or even part time forces. So the 2nd guaranteed the States the ability to keep said forces.

Thats how I understood it as well... So would you consider the State Police as an example of what the constitution had in mind?

Not really. while the militia back then did have a form of law enforcement to them, they weren't professional law enforcement.

A militia should be join-able by any free citizen, the State police are a job.

 

[Invisibleflash]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

If gun and ammo companies can be sued they will go out of biz. That is a major kill for the dems. No more new guns, then they just need to confiscate.

 

[Slade3200]

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights

Sure, just as soon as you join that "well regulated Militia".

Also how do you know what the Democratic party platform will be in 10,000 years?

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

Is the militia different than the state police force? If so, how?

The militia was the State's "army". The concern at the creation of the Constitution is that the Federal government would not allow States to keep their standing or even part time forces. So the 2nd guaranteed the States the ability to keep said forces.

Thats how I understood it as well... So would you consider the State Police as an example of what the constitution had in mind?

Not really. while the militia back then did have a form of law enforcement to them, they weren't professional law enforcement.

A militia should be join-able by any free citizen, the State police are a job.

Free citizens can join the state police right? Either professionally or through volunteer programs... right?

 

[Flash]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

 

[martybegan]

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights

Sure, just as soon as you join that "well regulated Militia".

Also how do you know what the Democratic party platform will be in 10,000 years?

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

Is the militia different than the state police force? If so, how?

The militia was the State's "army". The concern at the creation of the Constitution is that the Federal government would not allow States to keep their standing or even part time forces. So the 2nd guaranteed the States the ability to keep said forces.

Thats how I understood it as well... So would you consider the State Police as an example of what the constitution had in mind?

Not really. while the militia back then did have a form of law enforcement to them, they weren't professional law enforcement.

A militia should be join-able by any free citizen, the State police are a job.

Free citizens can join the state police right? Either professionally or through volunteer programs... right?

Not the same thing. 1st the State police is very limited in its number of members. 2nd. The State police have no military function, unlike a militia.

 

[Dick Foster]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

My god, in all this pandemic disaster, 2/3rds of states voted to hold a Constitutional convention and then the 2nd Amendment was revoked???
Why weren't we told? Why wasn't the media all over this?
Nothing in this paragraph is anything new and has been stated across multiple bills introduced in the House.
Nothing in this paragraph infringes upon a law abiding citizens right to own and operate a firearm.
A lot of it is just common sense. Especially securing a firearm in your home. We don't need legislation for that. You should be doing that as a matter of course.

You don't understand that the filthy ass Democrats have a plan to do away with the Second Amendment by simply infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms one oppressive law at a time.

It will continue until the Supremes tell the jackasses to knock it off and then the Democrats will ignore it just like they did with Heller..

Terrible platform that infringes upon the right. All Americans should reject it.

The gun-nutters like you are doing the gun debate no favors by making their arguments all a bunch of scare tactics divorced from reality. It's like trying to have a discussion on extraterrestrial life with a UFO nut wearing a tinfoil hat. Just can't take your phantom fears seriously.

If you can't make sense of a single clearly stated sentence, then you're the friggin nut, not him. Either that or you're simply an asshole.

Reminder that the entire anti-gun argument is based on irrational fear-mongering.

A reminder that you are absolutely correct. That and the anti gun nutters live with their heads shoved up their asses.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

 

[Slade3200]

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights

Sure, just as soon as you join that "well regulated Militia".

Also how do you know what the Democratic party platform will be in 10,000 years?

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

Is the militia different than the state police force? If so, how?

The militia was the State's "army". The concern at the creation of the Constitution is that the Federal government would not allow States to keep their standing or even part time forces. So the 2nd guaranteed the States the ability to keep said forces.

Thats how I understood it as well... So would you consider the State Police as an example of what the constitution had in mind?

Not really. while the militia back then did have a form of law enforcement to them, they weren't professional law enforcement.

A militia should be join-able by any free citizen, the State police are a job.

Free citizens can join the state police right? Either professionally or through volunteer programs... right?

Not the same thing. 1st the State police is very limited in its number of members. 2nd. The State police have no military function, unlike a militia.

So what’s an example of the militia?

 

[martybegan]

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights

Sure, just as soon as you join that "well regulated Militia".

Also how do you know what the Democratic party platform will be in 10,000 years?

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

Is the militia different than the state police force? If so, how?

The militia was the State's "army". The concern at the creation of the Constitution is that the Federal government would not allow States to keep their standing or even part time forces. So the 2nd guaranteed the States the ability to keep said forces.

Thats how I understood it as well... So would you consider the State Police as an example of what the constitution had in mind?

Not really. while the militia back then did have a form of law enforcement to them, they weren't professional law enforcement.

A militia should be join-able by any free citizen, the State police are a job.

Free citizens can join the state police right? Either professionally or through volunteer programs... right?

Not the same thing. 1st the State police is very limited in its number of members. 2nd. The State police have no military function, unlike a militia.

So what’s an example of the militia?

The closest thing is the National Guard, and even that has federal connections and thus doesn't meet the true intent.

The simple fact is the States have pretty much abandoned their ability to create and organized militia, and most only have the unorganized militia on their books.

The fact the States have abandoned their militias doesn't mean they have given up their right to them. Any State could form an armed militia outside of federal control, and the feds could do nothing constitutionally about it.

 

[Flash]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

What makes you think I’m trusting anybody To do anything? I never said anything about trust. I’m simply giving my opinion about issues and how to address them

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

We could make huge cuts to the defense budget and do that.

A Soldier once stole your girlfriend, didn't he?

No that I can recall.

I was just looking for reasons for the irrational hatred of the military.

 

[daveman]

It is the repukes that take liberties away. Dems define them.

Horseshit.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

 

[daveman]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Oh, then you support intelligence tests for voting.

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.