I do not see how we won't agree, other than taking things out of context.

The rights being stripped I was referring to is that most states already take the rights to own guns and to even vote for that matter away if you are a convicted felon and many are pushing that the same should be done for those diagnosed with mental illness in regards to the guns at least. Though the question then is at what severity is the threshold set, do we just take away guns from the severely mentally ill or do we take them away from anyone that suffers from depression or PTSD. Since according to some statistics it could mean that 49% of the citizenry could lose their 2nd Amendment Rights depending on the threshold of severity that is used if the mentally ill have the right to own guns stripped.


The toothbrushes and fishing line part was just looking toward where does the insanity end once it has started. After Columbine many things that had been previously seen as harmless were banned from schools all across the country because they could possibly be used as weapons, I was just ruminating that if we start down a path of banning things where does it end, yes guns are made as a weapon and purposed for killing, but if you look at it so were many tools that are used in everyday life like knives that now serve a dual purpose but even those are regulated in a lot of states as to size of blade that is legal to own and use, if anything with a larger blade is purchased it is legal only for display.


As for the Feinstien gun ban the assault rifle part I support, as I do not see the need for the common citizen to own a rifle designed for military usage. However the "high capacity" magazine definition they are using is a joke as it is any weapon or magazine over ten rounds capacity, which means a lot of hand guns, and a decent amount of shotguns can now fall into the category of being banned, unless the manufacturers are forced to create smaller magazine capacities, most of the handguns other than revolvers average a 10-15 round magazine. They point out that there are 90+ guns that will be illegal if they pass it. And not all of those weapons on the list are Assault Rifles. If the bill is written as semi-automatic weapons as being banned than it would be even worse as just about all guns except muzzle loaders, pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles fall under that category. Since semi-auto means that the mechanism of the gun runs through the complete process of chambering the round, firing the round, and ejecting spent shell casings as quickly as it takes to pull the trigger and then the trigger to reset to firing position.


Personally I don't own a gun and am not sure I ever would, I know how to shoot and can hit a target if needed. However, I am largely a peaceful person so I do not see the need to own a gun, even for hunting. The only hunting I do is going out in nature with my camera looking to shoot the wildlife along the nature trails around here.

I am not Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun. I am however opposed to Government trying to change the laws because it suits them or wins them political favor in moments of crisis. Then the citizenry has to deal with the laws passed because of some egregious event until they either get overturned, which takes a hell of a long time, or they just stay on the books forever no matter how stupid the law is or how poorly written it was. The "Orphan Works Act" being a perfect example of a law that was too poorly written for it's own good, not to mention PIPA, and SOPA as well. They may all have had good points in them but the way they were written the negatives outweighed anything positive in the bills.