Gang bangers, violent felons, child molesters are not my freinds, and my friends wouldn't let them get their hands on a gun. Psychotics could be my friend, but I'm not going to let them get their hands on a gun, and my friends won't give them guns either. Then there's that enemy of the US to consider...
There were cannon in the days of the Founding Fathers. Were those included (either implicitly or explicitly) in the discussion of the “arms” we could keep and bear? Just curious.
Smith says:
"-- And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? --"
Then there's that enemy of the US to consider...
Even more reason to conform to our supreme "law of the land", -- the idea of any man, woman, or responsible child, - paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper,
How are you going to stop them? With another law (or even an existing one)? I know, how about you give you your rights. That will do the trick.
Still working hard to be on the wrong side of history, I see.
Would it make you proud that the law worked and a law abiding citizen was killed but the killer didn’t get a gun in legal markets? Would it make the citizen any less dead? How about if that law abiding citizen was mistakenly denied the right to purchase the means of self defense?
The fact is that the bad guys will get guns. The laws that you support make it difficult for the good guys to get one to defend themselves.