Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3272714" data-attributes="member: 745">I know the answer. If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon and has not been executed, that person needs to be locked up, or institutionalized, or placed under 100% guardianship. Then, there will be no 'excuse" to place or enforce any infringements on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms which will make it possible for anyone to defend themselves from the violent actions of anyone who has not yet been adjudicated as too dangerous to be out in society.Knowing the foregoing, it is quite clear what the agenda of those who want to disarm us is. It isn't about "safety". It is about removing the biggest hurdle in the way of subjugation. No other logic fits.Note that adjudicated violent people who cannot be trusted with arms out in society are already known. Since those people will always acquire what ever weapons they desire through any of many unlawful means, rounding them up and exacting whatever remedy is required to keep them out of society is justified. If your mileage varies, you are part of the problem in my opinion.Woody</blockquote>