So the first two parts of this three point plan we've all heard before (and hey, #2, lets start suing car manufacturers for drunk drivers). Part three though, has me perplexed. I don't understand what she's talking about. What difference does time make? They're a felon - they're not getting a gun anyway.
Sorry, it was only available as an image and I was too lazy to type it all:
She wants background checks (passed successfully by, among others, the Roseburg OR and Isla Vista, CA shooters);
She wants to nullify PLCAA and blame manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse of their products by end-users, like we do for alcohol and automobiles (what's that? We don't do that?)
And she wants to make it even more illegal for felons to buy firearms from a retailer.
Is there any part of her position that doesn't run straight past full-retard, past potato, and land firmly in turnip territory?