Quote:

I don't think that the average American citizen needs to have an automatic assault rifle, or certain kinds of rounds that would be inherently lethal if used against fully armored police.



See, I take the opposite view, since it's handguns that are predominately used to commit crimes, whereas assault weapons (which can't really be concealed) will be needed for the purpose envisioned by the founders in the 2nd amendment if the Government ever (?) gets too far out of line. After all, the very incident that sparked the Revolution, the British raids at Lexington and Concord, were simply an attempt to seize and destroy Colonial stockpiles of arms that General Gage feared would be used against his troops. The fact that he was correct in that assumption is irrelevant; the founders wanted to ensure that if the government ever got out of line, the people would have the means to remedy the situation.

Having said that, this all boils down to the old Legislation vs. Enforcement debate. Liberals seek more restrictions on weapons of all types while conservatives argue that we don't need new laws, simply seek stricter enforcement of the laws we already have. While I normally side with the liberals on domestic issues, I've gotta go with the conservatives on this one. New laws aren't going to mean shit unless DOJ has the will to enforce them.

In the instant case, DC enacted it's overreaching local law because the Feds have done NOTHING to shut down the Iron Pipeline along I-95. Zero. Zip. Zilch. That's just wrong. Might additional laws become necessary in the future? Perhaps, but we'll never know the truth until we have the balls to enforce the ones we have.