This is a very good question. It's considered an act of terror to kill three people with a bomb (and it should be). Why shouldn't it also be an act of terror to kill 26 people (mostly tiny children) with a gun? Why is it considered OK, even manly, to own a military-style assault weapon? Why can't we ban civilian ownership of these weapons (since their only use is to kill a large amount of humans in a short time)? And don't try to answer that with the tired old Second Amendment argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning assault weapons would NOT violate the Second Amendment.
Politics Magazine
This is a very good question. It's considered an act of terror to kill three people with a bomb (and it should be). Why shouldn't it also be an act of terror to kill 26 people (mostly tiny children) with a gun? Why is it considered OK, even manly, to own a military-style assault weapon? Why can't we ban civilian ownership of these weapons (since their only use is to kill a large amount of humans in a short time)? And don't try to answer that with the tired old Second Amendment argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning assault weapons would NOT violate the Second Amendment.
