Originally Posted by sillyeagle
Which democrats want to take away guns? None that I know.
This is the lie of the century that the democrats push forward. Make no mistake about it, they DO want to take them away. Senator Feinstein herself said that she wants all firearms banned, saying (and I quote) "turn them all in".
She's not the only one (I'm not going to dig up links at the moment, but there are many.) The shocking thing is that even pro second amendment democrats repeat this, not realizing what their own party has openly stated.
But that's not all.
The current line of "nobody wants to take your guns away" is working under the assumption that what you already own you can keep. But, it sidesteps the long term goal. Anybody who has any kind of strategic mindset (notably game theory) should spot this a mile away: They want to ban the production of certain weapons based on cosmetic design (so called assault weapons) as well as restrict the trade of the existing stock. This is called a war of attrition. The idea is that if you cut off the means to acquire a resource, then that resource will inevitably run out. Things wear down, things break, things get consumed, things get spent, and things get lost. The end result is that there are no more. So yes, that is by proxy "taking your guns away."
And by the way, something I want to emphasize is just how wrong both the general public and virtually every single politicians are about firearms in general.
The first and most obvious wrong assumption they make is that full auto or even burst fire weapons are designed to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. That's not accurate at all. Full auto and/or burst is intended for suppressive fire. You spray bullets to keep your enemy's head down with the knowledge that most of your bullets will only succeed in hitting air, or at best many of them hit a single target rather than multiple targets. If your objective is maximum death, bolt action is best. Unlike full auto or even semi-auto, bolt action has both a psychological and physical effect on the shooter to make each shot count as it encourages you to steady your aim between shots in addition to permitting longer effective range and better penetration.
The second one is that they assume that the word "assault" in assault rifle makes it inherently more dangerous. Clearly we don't need assaults right? Wrong. Unlike say handguns, which they don't show any interest in banning, assault rifles don't make effective assassination weapons. Carrying around an assault rifle in a crowded building is far more likely to cause somebody to hit the deck long before say 38 special hidden in a coat pocket. Not only that, but assault rifles take longer and more effort to reload than most pistols.
TL;DR: Cut the BS. Not only do they NOT have an understanding of the subject matter at all, but they absolutely certainly DO want to take them away.