From TRP: The point is, if there are people who can commit mass-slaughter with a semi-automatic rifle, then how in the hell is it going to help a damn thing to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own such firearms? It doesn’t help anything but the criminal, period!
Listen, this argument is already won. We should always argue it from the winning position, not the defensive. The SCOTUS ruled in “D.C. v. Heller” that the 2nd Amendment is not just for hunting, but for protection against those who would do harm to us—like a tyrannical government, for example.
The question is, “What do people like Piers et al. hope to change by proposing legislation that severely infringes on the right for Americans to bear arms?” The crime stats just don’t back up the lib’s arguments that “gun control” legislation reduces violent crime—quite the contrary.
There’s one argument that can’t be one by a liberal on this matter … I’m tellin’ it can be done: if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. We have already given up way too much already.
Guns in the hands of citizens will result in accidents; but guns only in the hands of government results in genocide.
Wake up, America!