[Graybeard58]

Many liberals believe there is no need to own semi-automatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don't need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game -- and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.

Well, we aren't talking about The Bill of Needs now are we?

[TheRobb7]

Very true!

Since when does the Government get to decide what I need ?

[Aevery_Freeman]

Well, the Amendments: “I needs me a ‘BamaPhone” and “I needs me a EBT” have not been added yet, but the inauguration approaches.

[trebb]

They argue that hunters and sportsmen don't need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game -- and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection. /// Well, we aren't talking about The Bill of Needs now are we?

Exactly. Although they could be on to something if they would only pass a law that no more than one person could break into your home at any time, the perp cannot be on drugs, and agrees to fall down and give up even if not mortally wounded. Then we might only "need" a revolver with wad cutters for protection.