In response to:
Guns are dangerous, its a fact. However, it is an irrelevant fact. We must allow people to remain armed if we hope to maintain our liberty and keep tyranny at bay. Does that mean some people might get hurt? Sadly yes.
Any nation that would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserves niether and shall, in the end, lose both.
The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.
Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about "assault weapons" and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring "the gun lobby" to "children." (Which is evidently not at all like...
Guns are designed to kill. And they do so very effectively and efficiently. And since we are a nation founded on individual liberty, secured by guns, our personal protection is our own responsibility. Preventing tyranny is the other.
I know that Liberals can't envision anything that this president could do which would impinge on their personal liberties, but it wasn't so long ago that the same libs were squalking about "Darth Cheney." There is no need to argue how much worse one threat to liberty is over the other, the simple fact remains that both Republicans and Democrats can see that there is threat to their freedoms by the government.
The possession of guns (by sane individuals) decreases violent crimes.