In response to:

The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons

John2038 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:44 AM
No it isn't too harsh but perhaps roo rosy a viewpoint anymore. Just for an example take the "good law" about hate crimes. If i kill someone, then I am guilty of murder. If I kill someone who is say Jewish and have made statements about how bad "jews" are, then I am guilty of murder AND a "hate crime." Apparently as long as I have good thoughts about the person I am killing I don't deserve as harsh a punishment. Is that really a "good" legal difference? Thought police anyone? I will add my concept that it is the people that make a country "good" and not the "government."

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...