Here we go again. Another deranged psychopath and all things important are dropped to start attacking the second amendment.
The interpretations of the second amendment that a bunch of rebels who just fought a bloody war to overthrow control of a tyrannical government would so carelessly cast their fortunes under the creation of a similar one while adamantly preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle always amaze me. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles for game or guns to defend property against common criminals, it's the right to bare arms, period.
One of the arguments that anti-gun people use is for that sure, a few may be allowed for personal self-defense, presumably citizen against criminal. However, using that same argument against our founders' thoughts, the King's army was protecting them so no need for those pesky rebellious colonists to have armories and military grade weapons of their own. That first shot heard around the world was against the British march to seize their armories at Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonists. They would take them, but they didn't care about their hunting rifles, they wanted their cannons. Those patriots who founded this country and wrote that Constitution were traitorous rebels. Representatives from several of the original colonies had very serious reservations over handing power over to a central government to maintain a standing army and giving up their arms as that would have meant they risked their lives overthrowing one tyrannical government for another. No, I don't think preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle handy to get dinner was the top thing on their mind at the moment.
If all this fuss is over so-called "assault" weapons (which they're not, they're only semi-automatic firing), perhaps you can explain the rationale behind the police, national guard and even regular army troops being used to go door to door and confiscate small caliber handguns from little old ladies in their own homes after hurricane Katrina and leaving them defenseless? Also, why does our government go around the world arming rebels in other countries, as they continually try every method they can to disarm our own citizens? Don't they trust us as much as they trust all the potential terrorists they're arming around the world? And with all the misnamed 'assault' weapons in circulation out there, where are all the huge gun battles and big shootouts that we see in hollywood movies like between the old gangsters and the feds during prohibition even though swat team raids are escalating across the country over little things like food co-ops, farmers selling raw milk, and even delinqency or fraud on student loans?
And it's almost always a lone, deranged gunman we hear about firing up these gun (people) control debates. You don't control guns, you control people - by taking away their defenses. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I sure wouldn't rule out false flags to achieve exactly that. Mentally unstable people can be coached or coaxed to do just about anything.