Within hours, they were.
By the "Anti-Gunners!"
I don't think the death of innocents should become fodder for political cannon... but that's just what Senator Feinstein, the President, and many in others have done.
I find it telling that the NRA waited a week to say anything: allowing a bit of respectful mourning.
Let's note two things at present:
First - 99% of people in the press and politics know so little about the subject that anything they say is criminally negligent:
They talk about "clips" - rifles use magazines
They talk about "assault rifles" - the term comes from WWII Germany (Sturmgehwer), and describes fully automatic intermediate caliber rifles of which the STG44 was the archetype.
Current AR-15s are NOT fully automatic. They cannot be assault rifles- they just look similar.
They talk about modern sporting rifles "spraying" bullets - they can't. You have to pull the trigger for each shot. The AR-15s in gun stores are NOT fully automatic.
One press pundit with a law degree who was acting as a guest radio show host even tried to make the argument that modern sporting rifles are "more powerful" and "harder to control" than a shotgun, as well as being less accurate than a shotgun. I don't even know how to deal with that - has she ever SHOT a shotgun? Shotguns are not, by any measure, precise....
Second - they'll use the specious "need" argument:
It runs like this - "What do people need these 'assault rifles' with their high capacity 'clips' for anyways? You don't hunt with them..."
A - please see above. They're not assault rifles, they're not clips. Uninformed (read, "stupid") arguments are generally useless.
B - "Need" is not a valid category: I don't NEED a lot of things that I have. I don't need a diesel truck, a big-screen TV, a 4 wheeler, a double-breasted suit, or a library full of books. I have these things because I enjoy them. I don't drink, but the same could be said about alcohol, and those who consume it.
In fact... as a side note, consider this: every argument that has been made for the banning of firearms can be made for the banning of alcohol. Look at how well THAT ban worked out!
(By the way... the 2nd Amendment does not mention hunting)
To continue, people have killed or been killed for the things I listed above. They are, therefore, "dangerous".
But we don't talk about banning them.
The government should not be in the business of telling me what I can and cannot have, unless I have proven that I am dangerous with that thing. It should be a rare exception when we permit the government to control our "wants". Once we permit the government to regularly control our "wants," we cease to be citizens, and start to be "subjects."
An even casual study of the Constitution reveals that the goal is to limit the reach and intrusiveness of Government... not expand it. Once a Government starts encroaching on our rights, it won't stop. Governments don't behave that way.
The next time someone uses the "need" argument in regards to guns, look at them with a bit of fear: apparently, they are of the opinion that the government can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves.
I, for one, am pretty sure that the government cannot.
So, yes... I'm clinging to my guns. I use them. I enjoy them. I've never harmed another person with my guns. I sleep more comfortably knowing that the power to defend my family lies with me... not somewhere else. I think I should get to keep it that way.
Something about "cold, dead, hands" comes to mind...
