if you listen to what the paranoid, delusional gun nuts say
as a primary reason for their belief they need to possess an assault weapon it's because they feel they will have to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government. More specifically they fear the government will try to take their guns away. So logically, if they make their defense of gun possession along this line of argument doesn't it make sense that they are going to need something far more lethal if they are going to fend off the army? An AK isn't going to cut it if the National Guard shows up at their door with a tank. This begs the question, where do the nuts draw the line? If it's OK to own an AK why not an anti-tank weapon or something adequate to do the job of defending the right to own a gun (that nobody is actually trying to take away)?
to hold and shoot squirt guns and cap pistols. the ballooon burst at the state fair
will be outlawed. the expression "shoot baskets" will be banned from schools.
when your boss asks you to take on a new project, you won't be allowed to say:
"I'll take a shot at it"
Nut case, nit wit liberals have no logic or long-term thought processes.
Then you have those as seen on various street interviews that say the 2nd amendment should be tossed, period.
2nd amendment was added for citizen protection against all threats foreign and domestic. Having guns for sport, hunting and varmint control was accepted the same as owning a pair of shoes. Stinger missles and RPG's were not yet invented.
The fact that an AK can be used by outlaws and sick'os to kill more people than the average deer rifle is just a testament to the progress in firearms and regression in people. Then again, maybe this country has always had more than its share of outlaws and sick'os. After all it's a free country.