This is it in a nutshell, the source of every frigging nanny law on the books (which when viewed with a sane eye to the constitution, are unconstitutional). Just because you (the generic one) are a drooling child and must have your diaper changed daily does not mean I should be treated that way as well. Yet that is what happens and a new nanny law is passed.

Today we have clowns cheering for the fact it is illegal to not wear a safety belt. After all, it is "for our own good". Tomorrow, when they pass a law confiscating your bank account (the new law in Virginia comes close), you will scream. Why? There are plenty of people out there that cannot handle a bank account, so we "all" must be "protected" because of the drooling children.

What about assualt weapons like the AK-47? Why would somebody need one of those unless there a collector or a gang member how wantes to shoot very fast.

We have hunting rifles in our home. They could be used to protect if need be. But I would not be the one using them. I am afraid the kick would knock me on my butt.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal already (unless you have a special license) so what is your point exactly? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

first, I am talking in the world in genreal. And also arent we talking about gun control and if it is efective?

Which you didn't seem to address at all.

yeah your right.

Geez, you're no fun at all

Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Why worry about semi-automatic weapons when a fully automatic knife in the hand of a lunatic is just as deadly.

But to get to the question behind your question, the NRA feels (and history is on their side in this) that it will not stop with sane restrictions. It starts that way, and then becomes every other justification for nibbling at the right until the right has disappeared. That is how politicians do it. They have already done it with so many other laws and rights that it is no longer a question of "if" but when.

Remember WHOPPER in War Games? "The only way to win the game is to not play".

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used a gun. I will be the first to admit I am not competant in their use. So I do not own one. But that is my choice, not a law I have to live under.

One of the errors of many Americans is to try to extend their nationalistic view to the world. IN some cases that works. But each nation is different, each region is different. America is fairly unique for 2 reasons. We are not a nation state (a term that Leauki uses and is true) and we were not "given" our freedom.

Other countries can try to immitate us, but unless they can resolve those 2 differences, chances are they will not be as successful. Others have been as successful because they have done their own thing without trying to be us, and what works for them is not always what works for everyone else either.

I think guns should be freely available to anyone living outside my zip code.

Seriously, though, I'd rather have a gun for self defense than a sword-sized kitchen knife (it's not that big, but 4 inches is all you need, with good aim, though mine isn't). I think guns should be legal because you should never have to engage an assailant on equal grounds.

Uh,huh. And then some jerk is going to publish that fact and guess who the robbers are going to target?

I would rather live in a zip code that requires all home owners to have a gun, than one who bans them.