In response to:

The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons

dcote963 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:02 AM
Where was the SWAT team while that nut was killing all those kids. The police can't keep us safe. That's been proven in England and Australia. The Bad Guys outnumber the good guys. Police can't be everywhere. If that wasn't a gun free zone someone at that school in Connecticut would have been carrying and would've put an end to that crazy. They tried gun confiscation in England and Australia and it hasn't reduced the crime rate a single bit. All it did was let the criminals know that only them and the police are armed so they don't have to worry about the ordinary citizen fighting back. What's the response time of police 15 to 30 minutes or more. Usually the crime is over with before they arrive.
dcote963 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:07 AM
Another reason for the need of semi-automatics is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't written to allow us to hunt for food or sport. It was written to allow us to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government just like the one we have right now. No wonder the liberals are so intent on grabbing the guns even though it wouldn't stop mass murder. Anyone that is willing to kill will find a way to obtain what he or she needs to do the job and no laws will make any difference since they are already planning to commit a heinous crime that will guarantee the death penalty is in play.

By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic "assault" rifles: nobody needs one. We’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.

"I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt," Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. "I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods...