He can "feel comfortable" all he wants, but his feelings are where the subject ends.

Simply having opinions does not grant anyone authority to impose those opinions on others - especially when one is of the tyrannical opinion that engaging in an activity that one disapproves of is enough to deprive that person of the human right to self-defense outright.

It is not reasonable that a person should surrender their right to effective self-defense simply because they are drinking.

...he asserted without evidence, and the obviously biased reporter just let that slide.

There are no "pro-gun laws". There is only the right to keep and bear arms, and infringements against that natural state.

Since nature is pro-gun, the only laws that exist infringe on that, so all gun laws are anti-gun laws.

Jake misspelled "infringements" here.

Rights aren't established by men, they are inherent, especially within the sphere of US law. Start by reading "The Declaration of Independence" that "holds these truths as self-evident".

Also known as "self-defense".

This hope runs afoul of the #JustPowers clause of The Declaraton of Independence.

Simply put, all just powers of Government must be derived from individuals, and since no individual may do these things (if they did, they would likely be charged criminally for their violent actions to do so) no one can justly grant these powers to Government.

Since it fails this test, the proposal is clearly unjust based on the test laid out in our founding documents. No party that consistently proposes imposing violent or unjust policies should be allowed to exist.

Ohio already has scores of other laws that can be applied where warranted. From negligent homicide to child endangering. Application of existing law is up to prosecutors.

Statists who seek to rule others based on their emotions think "one more law" would ensure that they never have bad feelings ever again - if their opinion is forced upon enough people.

This ignores the reality that the situations they're fretting about are already covered by existing law. The objective reality that "laws don't actually prevent bad things from happening" is lost on these fools.

Requiring firearms to be locked such that they cannot be effectively used in an emergency has been found to violate the Second Amendment, so she's either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

I've lost track of the number of times Mayor Andrew Ginther has spun up "a new alliance" of "faith leaders, city leaders, and medica professionals" and called upon "everyone" to fight the crime problem he's done nothing to address - as did his predecessors.

If only there were a way to hurl objects at an attacker very quickly and accurately in Texas. Perhaps one could carry multiple such objects in case the first few missed.