A few years ago I read an interesting treatment of the subject that argued that most people’s objections were not to guns per se, but to the type of people who are aggressive and vocal about guns. After initially rejecting it, further thought led me to agree. If every gun owner was sane, responsible, and smart enough to follow sensible precautions(such as not letting 4 year olds have access) I don't think there would be as much controversy. However, since that will never be the case, as with so many other things, the government has to regulate conduct by the immature and irresponsible. I am not worried the Beagle Boys are going to break in, I'm worried some psycho on the highway will decide he doesn’t like the way I’m driving. This crap about “ criminals won’t obey the law” is stupid; most shootings are by “law abiding citizens.”

Assault rifles are already illegal in my state, though it is common to call the semiautomatic rifle I own an assault rifle. I remember a law passed to outlaw firearms with scary looking features, such as with the TEC-9 handgun (though with that particular weapon it was mostly the high capacity magazines at issue). There were other weapons that had the exact same firepower, but if it looked military (flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc.) it may have made the ban list.

Again, it makes me wonder how easily some are willing to forfeit a right of someone else, just because they think it doesn't apply to them. I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat and favor sensible restrictions (domestic abusers being at the top of the list).

But but the GOP always gets lot of mileage out of wedge issues around election time, and as a progressive firearms owner, I think my Constitutional rights come into play as well. The 2nd Amendment is not about a right to hunt. At the time it was written it protected private ownership of the most advanced weapons of their time.

Yes, I know about their place in the history of keeping slaves subdued, but we also have the threat of an actual civil war at some point. The goddamn Yam-in-Chief just talked about his biker, LEO, and military supporters taking things into ther own hands. The God, guns, and gays crowd is heavily armed. I'll still have a flower or two to place down the barrel of their rifles, but a Plan B is not an unwarranted precaution either. I'm deep into a politically red county where I live.

To those that think there should be no private firearm ownership, work to change the Constitution. To those that think the effectiveness needs to be restricted, would black powder muzzle loaders be cumbersome enough for you? I own a historical curio. The same Mosin-Nagant Soiet sniper rifle Vasely Zaytsev used in WWII. It is technically a combat weapon, though single round bolt action. If someone murders with this type of firearm, would someone else make the argument to turn them all in as well?

I once attended a Firing Line taping on internet freedom back in the day. Arianna Huffington was on the panel (before she became a liberal) and said that if outlawing internet freedom would save just one child from being abused... that it would be worth it.

How many here would agree with that logic?

As soon as we start limiting the types and number of guns our citizenry can have, the anti-gun people will use that to tighten the proverbial noose until there are no guns in private hands left to protect. I do not like many types of firearms, but I believe we need to honor our right to have them.