I really have a conceptual problem with the whole gun debate.
I completely see where the "anti-gun" folks are coming from. Almost all of them are city-folk, and they've had to live through the wreckage of a "shooting". Seriously, if I lived in the city again, and my neighbor had a .50 BMG, I'd be soiling my knickers. WHY would you need such a thing? But I can make a heck of an argument for having a 1911-type .45 throwing a Glaser slug.
And at the same time I see where the "pro-gun" lobby is coming from. The moment you disarm the populace, they will be enslaved. Historically, this has happened a dozen times.
There is a balance here, and that is what LIFE is about. Balance. Guns are not evil. People are not evil. But combine the worst of both and you will get... EVIL.
Personally, I don't think some bozo in Washington DC should dictate how I deal with predators to MY HERD. To wit, if I'm defending livestock, or family, or friends, from a bona fide threat, be it animal or human, they can kiss my entire ass. Conversely, I don't need a .50-chambered weapon to do that. A good .30-06 or .308 will take-down anything moving on the North American continent... and beyond.
Put another way: Anything designed to drop a grizzley bear at 400 yards is silly to have in the city. Conversely, there isn't any reason for someone in the country to have a thermonuclear weapon.
There is grounds for compromise here. It isn't black and white. The debate need not boil-down politics if only common sense will prevail.
Give me an underground laboratory, half a dozen atom-smashers, and a beautiful girl in a diaphanous veil waiting to be turned into a chimpanzee, and I care NOT who writes this nation’s laws. ... S.J. Perelman