is the message the NRA/ILA/GOA/KKK has been shouting for years, and gullible people believe it. They take the banning of a single firearm (assault rifle) and make it a national rallying cry against reason and sanity.

These are the same people who actually believe that the Second Amendment is meant to legitimize the overthrow of the elected government of the United States because Billy Bob thinks he's being forced to live under political tyranny. To Billy Bob and other Second Amendment absolutists, "tyranny" is defined as women's rights, Obama Care, a minimum wage, school lunch programs, and other Democratic social values.

Then there are the "gun rights" apologists who jump on the right-wing gun lobby's bandwagon because they actually believe the "coming for your guns" claptrap.

The message? Keep your guns at home when you're not going hunting or to the range, and respect the rights of non-gun owners to go about their business in gun-free public spaces. What's that? Only the criminals will have guns in public? Enforce existing laws relating to possession of guns in public, and make new laws to address the gun violence epidemic with very stiff penalties.

Long time lurker, first time poster. This one made me feel compelled to weigh in.

After years of seeing the online debate on "they're coming for our guns", I have come to the conclusion on what it really means. The right seems to be under the impression that having a semi-automatic rifle with a standard capacity 30-round magazine puts them on an even playing field with the militarized police force and the military, and that taking away the ownership of said weapon will put them on an uneven field with said groups. My response to this conclusion is as follows:

1 - Banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles does not mean taking them away from you. While I personally would love to have them turned in, it isn't going to happen (and I think all the tough talk on shooting "door knockers" is just that, tough talk). There will never be a bill at the federal level that will not grandfather in what is currently out there. I can live with that, because once we get a ban in place, eventually enough time will pass that the semi-automatic rifle will fall the way of the automatic rifle.

2 - None of us are on an equal footing with the militarized police (let alone the military). This idea that not having a semi-automatic rifle makes them less able to "fight back" is ridiculous. The police have them as well as actual military stuff and SWAT teams. It is a false belief that one's AR-15 and/or AK-47 Clone is going to let one stand their ground against these well armed groups. It's insane actually. Whether one has an AR-15 in their hands or a bolt-action rifle with a 5-round magazine, their chances are the same; none.

3 - I agree that the police are over militarized and have a serious problem with being trigger happy and violent, however that can and will be addressed through legislation. The other implication of my number 1 above is that police violence can be addressed with violence. It can't and the person that thinks that is deluded (see number 2).

4 - I've seen the right use arguments that we on the gun control side are hypocritical because the bans on future sales we want never include the police. This is again starting from the belief that they are on equal footing because they own a safe full of semi-automatic rifles; a false and dangerous belief. I do want the police to lose the semi-auto rifles they have as well as the automatic ones and their military vehicles, but not until bans on future sales for the rest of the population have been in place for a few decades to give time for the grandfathered ones to go out of circulation through natural means. Then I would love to see our police force go back to the days before the major shoot out in LA with those two armored and armed bank robbers caused the police views to change to a military one.

These are my thoughts on the subject, thanks for letting me weigh in.

and welcome to DU and the GCRA Group.

All of your points are well taken, and generally follow mainstream gun control positions.

I realize that not all of the "gun rights" crowd think they can take on the police or military with their weapons. I happen to know a few myself. Their argument is very honest, just devoid of empathy and humanity.

Their argument boils down to "I realize my huge arsenal won't do me much good against tyranny, but I really have a whole lot of fun shooting it at the gun range. I realize a whole bunch of people die per year due to gun violence, but I love my toys at the range for a few hours of feeling really cool; that means more to me than anything else. Plus, have you seen these things? They look really cool!"

In some ways, I can respect that argument. It is up front an honest. These particular individuals aren't deluded in thinking their AR-15 will make them Rambo, and by stating they won't change their beliefs they aren't trying to sucker you in to a dishonest "debate". However, those respect points go way down due to the utter lack of humanity that is required in order to have that sort of ideological perspective.

don't usually post on Internet boards and support the NRA, or fawn all over social misfits like George Zimmerman. I have no problem with owning an arsenal or shooting at the range, but carrying a gun in public and looking for an excuse to stand-your-ground is anti-social and anti-American behavior.

Keep the guns at home, and we will all be safer, and we will know where not to let our kids (or families) visit.

it won't get through their idiot skulls.

Eight years of Obama NOT taking their guns only made the average gun-humper think he needed to stockpile enough weapons to defend a small country.

They aren't subject to sane logic. American gun-humperism is a sickness.

squinch: Eight years of Obama NOT taking their guns only made the average gun-humper think he needed to stockpile enough weapons to defend a small country.

Oh but Obama DID try to take guns away; he proferred a suggestion to reinstate funding for research into gun crime & firearm injury, and if that isn't trying to take guns away according to wayne lapierre-head, well, what is?
.. a camel's nose in the nra circus tent is just a few feet away from a law abiding clown's concealed holster guns.