[Hugh the Scot]

There is no difference to infringement for “public safety” and infringement just because we don’t want you to be armed.

If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be walking around in public.

Incarcerate them using due process then, do not violate the Constitution.

[ExTxMarine]

If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be walking around in public.

Incarcerate them using due process then, do not violate the Constitution.

I had this argument with an idiot on the local news website, when they asked about Red Flag laws. I explained, that if they were out and walking about, then they should have the right to protect themselves however they see fit.

He asked me if felons should be allowed to have weapons. I said, "If they are out and walking about, then they should have the right to protect themselves however they see fit." Simply stated, if they are too dangerous for the public, then surely we have the means to incarcerate them using due process. We make the streets safer and actually USE the Constitution, instead of violate and decimate it!

At that point I was called crazy because I thought "crazy people" and felons should have guns. I said, so in your mind, you would suggest the police come and get MY guns (if I had any), simply because YOU think I am crazy - how does that work in a free society? Needless to say, they just turned into a bunch of name-calling children, who could never could give me a logical explanation why using due process wasn't a better means to keeping the public safe, without destroying the Constitution!