You don't need them for hunting or defense. I think people are sick of seeing these mass shootings with nothing actually being done to try to stop them...
Hey man, not interested in starting a fight over this, since there are a lot of opportunities for compromise. That said, I really have a problem with the "Does anyone really need ________ for ________?" argument which seems to be the go-to of people advocating categorical banning of firearms by type. A better question would be "Will the removal of citizens' access to this previously permitted thing yield a net positive shift in public safety which is both quantifiably demonstrable and of sufficient magnitude to justify the curtailment of civil liberties as well as the precedent it sets for subsequent curtailment of civil liberties?" Which most folks don't wanna tackle because hey, who has the time for rational investigation when THE CHILDREN?!?!? You can call me whatever you think is relevant for this, but since our Constitution and its amendments don't actually
give anyone rights but acknowledge and protect the freedoms which already exist, I shouldn't have to defend my
need for something in order to justify my
right to it. I'm not even that attached to what guns I own (they were inherited so their only real value for me is memories), and I'm actually very heavily informed by pacifism - it just so happens to be
anarcho-pacifism, so I have a real problem with any state intervention into others' personal freedoms unless there's a damn good justification for it.
