In response to:

Angry Gun Control Debate Does Collateral Damage

Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:03 PM
Medved gets an A. He's absolutely right about this.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:15 PM
Except for one point. "Assault weapons" are not necessarily for defending ones home against thieves. It's about remaining well armed enough to resist government tyranny.

THAT is why gun-grabbers hate firearms. They're a check against the little tyrants ultimate goal, bigger government.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 2:43 PM
Exactly Chris 102. And having guns to ultimately protect us against tyranny by some future government, is no more paranoid than keeping a fire extinguisher at the ready in your home. No difference whatsoever with regards to paranoia. The libs want to paint anyone who owns a semi automatic rifle which looks like it's military counterpart, as being tin foil hat types, who are waiting for the black helicopters to arrive. That's nothing but political rhetoric and their attempt to use Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals to try and marginalize us. We will not be marginalized. We are patriots. We are taxpayers. We are hard working, rugged individuals. We will NOT go quietly into that good night.

The Great Gun Debate shows American political discourse at its irrational worst; with both left and right promoting panic and hysteria that distracts attention from the nation’s truly menacing problems. Instead of addressing crushing deficits, economic stagnation, political gridlock, and the erosion of middle-class security, politicians and pundits obsess over gun violence—one of the few challenges where the United States has made dramatic progress in recent years.

How can the president and his supporters work themselves into a self-righteous lather over minor regulatory adjustments that have been tried before with no measurable impact on the rate of firearms...