I have to do this again, just because it is weighing on my mind after a conversation I had a bit earlier with one of the world's cognitively challenged.

I would be far more sympathetic with the gun nuts (bear in mind Gramps was a gunsmith, I was occupied after school sorting spent brass in the basement gun range, had my first rifle at age 8, I'm with military experience) if they would be a bit more reasonable about type.

I have yet to figure out the justification for weapons that can be broken down to fit in a briefcase that are fitted with 30/60/100 round magazines. If they can explain rationally why weapons with high rate of fire and extended magazines are necessary for hunting, target shooting, or home protection, then great.

For the hunters, the trick is to bring down your game with a single, clean shot. Failing that, then two. The reason is simple, you're going to eat the damned thing, but not if it's torn to shreds. Why a 30 round clip at 80 rounds per minute?

If someone breaks into your home while you are there, one shot into the ceiling will more than likely send him/them packing. Ever heard a high powered . 30 cal go off in a closed room? You and he/they will be deaf for at least a couple of hours, unless you sleep with your earplugs in.

By the way, within the confines of the average home, a long weapon is a bit awkward and the range involved makes it very hard to miss with a simple revolver with even a 4" barrel.

Today, fighting back against a tyrannical government is a ludicrous proposition, unless you have a stockpile of the latest in military weaponry in your doomsday bunker.

You only have one semi defensible argument and that is that you like guns. Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not all wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth against guns, I just have a problem with the types in question because I can find no reasonable, logical, rational reason for many of them beyond their destructive capacity.