Matrix Morpheus

The divide is stupid. Why should there be a divide in the first place?

That's a different conversation and that's what civilized people do. We are going to divide because we are hopefully being a society of free thinkers and individuals with different interests. In a country though, we hope that our common ground is our Constitution and values. Since the Democrat Party doesn't value these two and other items then they are against "We the People". When I say "WE", I am referring to the electorate. We have a duly elected president who the DNC refuses to honor as such. This is the same party who said that "Elections have consequences" and was holding him to the task of honoring the outcome of the 2016 election results. I hope this helps.

Sure you support the Constition - In your dreams.

The "right to bear arms" is not unfettered. There is the "well-regulated Militia" language in the text of the 2A, and states are allowed to impose some restrictions. Some laws around guns have been stricken down, others upheld.

Guns are exactly the kind of issue where the text of the Constitution itself does not provide a whole lot of practical guidance, and its meaning therefore needs to be litigated and elucidated.

"Some restrictions"?? Have you looked at what's happening in Virginia? Not one Democrat politician denounced Beto O'Rourke when he stated thet "Yes, we are coming for your guns". How do you interpret "Not to be infringed"? I live California and the laws change and the 2A is being infringed in such a way to make law abiding citizens criminals the instant those laws are changed. Mind you that it is always the Democrats who keep challenging the 2A. This is a constitutional right which needs to and should be off limits. There are bigger fish to fry.

O'Rourke is out of the running now, but since you brought him up:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/15/beto-orourke-gun-debate-229849

From the article: "O’Rourke is now calling for a mandatory buyback for assault weapons and a voluntary buyback for handguns. The funding for the buybacks, he says, would come from increasing the excise tax on gun manufacturers and increasing fines on traffickers. People who do not sell back their assault weapons would be fined."

This, from the 2020 Democratic candidate that was considered the most rabidly anti-gun of the bunch. "Mandatory" assault weapon-only buy-backs that, in the end, you can just pay a fine to avoid. Hardly SWAT team members kicking down your doors to snatch all your guns away from you in the dead of night.

Personally, I don't think assault weapons are valid tools of self-defense and there certainly isn't any Supreme Court precedent saying that they are. So at this stage of our constitutional history, I believe such weapons can constitutionally be banned while still complying with 2A. Unlike handguns, which the D.C. v. Heller SCOTUS decision in 2008 protects.

I don't live in CA or VA and I don't have an opinion on whatever's happening there.

Democrats are in disagreement with America.

Thanks - there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a made up term. Our founders were wise beyond their years and through studying history, they knew that one of the first steps tyranical governments took was to disarm their citizens and that is exactly what will happen if we don't stamp this nonsense out quickly. They are simply trying to do so incrimentally. What happens if I refuse to pay the fine??? What happens when a lot of Americans refuse to pay the fine? How do you interpret "MANDATORY"? Also note that the government cannot "buy back" something they never had.

The most amazing thing about America is that the founders gave the power to us - the people. But the Democrats - and some Republicans - want to give that very same power back to Government. Less government regulations equal more freedom and liberty.