Yeah, I'd be interested to see SkyDiving's service time in the military compared to yours.
Dude, you want to shoot some high powered guns? Go sign up.
That bolded part just shows me that you're not really paying attention to what I've said. I'm not here screaming about the U.S. Gov't taking our guns away or wanting to hoard 'high-powered guns.' I'm simply saying that it is lawful for someone to do that, and I think any responsible gun owner has that right. I also think that most people are irrational when it comes to their stance on certain things and get swept up in the emotion of the hour, so it's frustrating to see the lack of balance in both sides of the argument.
With that said, though, I'm also generally against the idea of gov't intervention in most things. It just adds inefficiency. That's simply my opinion, and nothing more, but it's been proven time and again that in this country, outlawing certain things (yes, including guns or magazines that hold 'X' amount of bullets) doesn't solve the problem. It seems that we have this uncanny ability to hit the bullseye on the wrong target (no pun intended) and some fresh thinking seems necessary. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a reasonable compromise is some kind of incentive. You specifically mentioned safes and insurance on cars as being somewhat similar and that's a good analogy. Just like with most auto insurance companies, though, if you are 'safe' for 'x' amount of years, you get a discount on your premiums. Could we do the same thing with guns? I mean, if the gov't wants to get involved (which they clearly feel a mandate to at this point) why not give tax credits to ammunition manufacturers that give discounts to people that have a certain type of safe or go to a yearly training session on gun safety led by local law enforcement?
Kind of a fleeting thought, but it's just an idea based on an incentive. A local buy-back program of some sort may also help, but I just don't see the point of enacting some new law that prohibits certain types of firearms or magazines. It will not work. If someone is crazy enough to want to go shoot a bunch of kids, I contend that that person could do just as much damage with a shotgun as they could with a high-powered rifle. So at some point, we'd also get into defining what is and isn't necessary with civilian weaponry which I think is a slippery slope as well as short-sighted.
Also, per IrishSlim's post...yeah, I'm not sure how I would feel if I had gone through what he went through. But again, he's entitled to his own opinion. My best friend did three tours in Irag and suffered from PTSD for two years and almost killed himself. He hates guns, and will probably never shoot one again and that is an honest-to-god story. However, comparing military service to someone who just wants every responsible gun owner to have the continued right to protect themselves or their loved ones doesn't make much sense.
And as with most things, that are heated, people just don't do a good job listening to the other side. So I'm sitting this one out. You guys feel free to continue debating over who is more right and who is more wrong, though. I'm sure it will solve something...