Whenever I hear the gun control people talking, I like to ask Why our forefathers sitting down and drawing up the constitution thought that the freedom of speech was the most important amendment and the right to own and bare arms was the second most important. Don't they think that maybe the forefathers thought the second was the guarantee to be able to enforce the first.
Whenever I hear about restrictions such as clip capacity etc. I have to ask, do you think a restriction weakened civilian population can defend against a superior armed corrupt government? Isn't that the very purpose of the constitution? Afterall our forefather had just won a revolution against a government that had been corrupted by a self serving president (opps) I mean King.
Over the years we have had plenty of laws passed against murder and other crimes of discontent. But laws only work after the fact.
For centuries people have been killing people. First they probably used rocks, then knives, swords, guns and lately bombs and vehicles. No amount of restrictions will stop it. There is always some kind of a tool or way to do the job. Restrictions only prevent the majority from fairly enforcing the laws.
While I'm on my soap box. The middle east today shows millions running away from thousands! I have to ask WHY!!!