[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Until both sides are will to come to the table and engage in fact and evidence based discussions, nothing will happen.

You mean like the NRA does?

Using made up terms to try and instill fear or ignore the laws as they exist isn’t the way to effect change. Once people realize that, maybe there can be a real discussion

You need to spend five minutes watching anything on NRATV. That would have you change your mind. As it is, you're uninformed and don't really understand the issue or any of the outcomes.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

“Assault style weapons”

Why not use “semi-automatic rifle”?

Because there is a difference. A significant difference. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons that are used for purposes other than chewing up a target. Assault style weapons are designed for one thing, and one thing only - to inflict as much damage in as short a period of time as possible. End. Of. Story.

And that comes from someone who owns an AR-15 and enjoys shooting it. I don't take it hunting, because it is not designed for hunting.

It’s even started to creep into Canadian debates. The anti-gun crowd is now using “assault style sporting rifle” since they can’t get away with “assault weapons”

Because you believe in responsible gun ownership and protections against the greater good does not make one anti-gun. Just the opposite in my view. I know plenty of gun owners, like myself, that recognize there is a great responsibility that comes with having and maintaining a weapon. Unfortunately, there are too many idiots out there that think just because you can breathe you have the right to own a gun. Far from the truth.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let's put this into context shall we. At the time of the drafting of this language the country did not have a standing army. Each of the states had a small group of professionals, referred to as the militia, responsible for the defense of the colony/state. This was much like the National Guard today. People were allowed to maintain their weapons so they could be called up in support of the militia. Hence most of the colonists did not keep or maintain muskets, because of that requirement. Just a reminder, only 3% of the colonists took up arms and fought the British, and only 40-45% were sympathetic to cause. It should also be noted that the weapon of the day was the long musket. A weapon that could fire two-three rounds a minute in the hands of a very skilled operator. A similar weapon today would be the 50 caliber black powder rifle. If people want to own that, more power to them. I would wholly support that claim!

The biggest problem with the majority of American gun owners, especially the NRA member types, is the paranoia that grips their every waking moment. They claim they want to own weapons to safeguard the country and protect their families from a tyrannical government. Seriously? We are the ####ing government. You want to change the behaviors of government, get involved in the mechanism and vote your dip#### representative out of office. Owning a gun doesn't change a damn thing. Frankly, the government laughs at your collection of assault rifles and side arms. One apache gunship can end an entire modern militia in its tracks. A single drone can eliminate any number of AR wielding #######s, and doesn't put any of the government at risk. All those small arms don't impose a threat to the government. Period. Gun ownership, especially for assault weapons, is ridiculous. Limit weapon access by action, and allow civilians to only have access to manual action weapons. Also restrict the number of rounds in a magazine. Simple and effective solution.