That is really crap AK-47. Are you suggesting that there should be some minimum standard on riffle accuracy? I could not agree more.

There is group A. who don't want anyone killed and who don't own arms. And group B. who want to go to the range blinking any now and then, and who don't either want to get anyone killed.

Everybody agrees that people should not die because of guns. I don't think anyone really believes that guns would actually save lives. But I have not seen any reliable data that legally owned guns would cause statistically significant damage. And you have to remember that everything has a price, people die in traffic because it's nicer to travel 60mph than 30mph. In traffic, convenience of many is more important than lives of few.

There are the illegal weapons. Everybody agrees that these are a problem. Something could be done with decent firearm registration, so there would be a way to track if a gun is illegal or not. The group B doesn't want this to happen, as it's afraid that once group A knows the exact amount and location of their weapons, they are going to get and destroy those legal firearms. So group B throws around all kinds of shit arguments to divert group A. And inside group A the totalitarian gun stripping nuts are the most vocal dudes. I think the group B last stand plan is to simply hide much of their now legal weaponry if the law changes suddenly. So the group A does not want to move quickly.

The 2. states quite clearly that Feds can't do much about it. This should be played as a good thing for group A. If group A would say that it's completely fine that government doesn't interfere with civilian gun ownership, that would calm down group B. Then take the whole thing to state level. If some state would actually organize some sort of militia and arm that militia, could the feds anymore have any say about guns in that state?

If state gun politics is to be considered, one should remember that banning something is same as giving up all control over that thing. You can't tax, track or regulate something that's illegal. (yes this goes for drugs too)

I certainly think that the overwhelming narrative from the NRA/Conservatives is that the right to bear arms exists in order for the citizenry to be able to rise up against a tyrannical government. This is how they would argue for the automatic weapons etc.

I had to drive to the other side of the state of NC yesterday and while there I turned on the radio. The programming was a conservative talk show and they were comparing Obama's executive orders to HItlers. Saying that Hitler confiscated all of the Jews guns and only allowed his friends and cronies to have weapons and that this is the direction Obama was heading. wtf?

I have grandparents that witnessed WWII, and as children were displaced from their homes etc. They remember Hitler's Germany well and they are Obama supporters. The conservative media sure likes to throw around the Hitler comparisons and it's an insult to people that actually remember that monster. By the way, I felt the same way when idiots on the left were comparing GWBush with Hitler too.