The ability to bump fire a weapon does not mean a weapon is an ‘assault weapon’.

I’ve also come to realize there are some very intelligent, articulate folks out there who will apparently never listen to anything outside of folks who believe exactly as they do. Hey, I’m guilty of the same thing sometimes, but I do try to see each argument from both sides. Heck, I’ll even read coverage of the same topics on CNN and FOX to make sure that the truth is somewhere in that vast middle ground between them.

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is this national debate has spawned the sale of millions, maybe even billions of rounds of ammunition, along with every 30 round magazine available (except for those few being sold on Ebay for 4 to 5 times what they cost a week ago). There’s no exaggeration there, try to find .223 ammunition or magazines – they are gone. And it’s not just AR15 stuff either – good old 22 ammunition has been scooped up too.

The devisiveness is only growing…

Exactly. And even with these “strict” regulations, automobiles kill more people per day that firearms.

“… and “self-defense” is never used in the description of their “use”. ”

NO? Ever heard of defensive driving. You are defending yourself from other inattentive drivers.

Again, an AR-15 is not an “assualt weapon”…it is a semi-automatic rifle, no different than any other caliber rifle that holds multiple rounds of ammunition and fires ONE round with each tigger pull.

Why do Libs insist on overlooking the truth?

No one here has even suggested we “take away anything that can potentially be considered a weapon”, and IMO it is ludicrous to consider a car as a weapon. Moreso if comparing it to guns. But no one has suggested “outlawing” either.

They are not “the same thing!” Even if you insist on the comparison, you know very well that cars are required to be registered, drivers are required to be licensed and “self-defense” is never used in the description of their “use”.

The number of people who deliberately aim a car and kill with it are very very few. And since you claim to want to compare apples to apples, then do so.

The CDC reports the number of vehicle deaths as 34,485 and the number of firearms deaths as 31,347. In fact:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

We study car crashes and we require more and more safety innovations. Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, little black boxes, and other innovations for safety have come out of those fatalities.

You are absolutely not constitutionally guaranteed the right to a military style assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. Show me where it says you are.

When they start making automobiles for the purpose of self defense and to kill, I will surrender mine happily. Until then, you are just making a far out comparison that makes no sense.

Pardon me if I cannot muster sympathy for how terribly inconvenient it would be for anyone not to be able to buy an assault rifle styled like a military weapon capable of shooting 30 bullets from one magazine.

I doubt those parents in Newtown, laid awake worrying about their babies being killed in first grade while at school either.

There’s nothing that can be done to anyone who might commit a crime. That’s the way our laws and our society work. It’s not possible for the authorities to do anything to anyone who might do something.

I’m OK with background checks for all purchases. And I’m certainly for making sure that the data required to accurately perform those background checks is up to date, complete, and consistent across the country.

The proposal to allow properly trained teachers to carry is certainly the only thing that could happen in a relatively short period of time.

Last time I checked most folks were considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Certainly not perfect, I guess, but has worked for me for quite some time.

If we are going to take away anything that can potentially be considered a weapon, we may as well outlaw automobiles.

I’ve heard all the arguments about “it’s not the same thing!”,”you’re comparing apples to oranges!”, etc. Am I? I don’t think so. The automobile, on average, weighs about 3000 lbs. Some considerably more. And according to the law, EVERYONE that drives an automobile is REQUIRED to have a license to drive.

Two thousand five hundred ninety-seven.
(number of traffic FATALITIES in the us December 2010)

That’s about 90 per DAY. FATALITIES. This continues today. TODAY.

The Centers for Disease Control says 11,493 people died from gun homicides in 2011 (USA).

NBC News reported that 32,367 people died from traffic fatalities in 2011 (USA).

Since we are certainly not constitutionally guaranteed the right to an automobile (or multiple automobiles, for that matter), and that it would sure seem that statistically one is more likely to die in a ‘death by automobile’ incident than at the hands of a gun-toting madman, I propose the following:

I’ll give ‘the Authorities’ ALL of my firearms. You, the gun-control advocate, MUST match that by giving the Authorities ALL of your automobiles. (to include light trucks, motorcycles, etc. essentially anything that can legally be driven on the Eisenhower interstate system.)

Neither one of us are then allowed to purchase another firearm or automobile in the interim period until we compare the statistics five years down the road and observe the change (if any) in statistics.

If you think that the majority of Americans, or even a majority of non-gun-owning Americans think this is a great deal, then fair enough! I’m game.

Just remember the conditions of the deal: No purchase of guns or automobiles for everyone involved no matter how terribly inconvenient that may be for all involved.

I must conclude that while these shootings are, indeed, tradgedies, I don’t lie awake at night worried about my children getting gunned down at school or at the mall. I worry a WHOLE lot more that my children (or me and my wife) will be killed at the hands of some inattentive driver.

Gee, thanks for all that effort on behalf of society.