This has been beat to death, but maybe someone can explain it to me in a different way. Why is it that the solution seems to be centered around specific types of arms which are hugely popular and by and large laying around dormant in the possesion of people with no ill intent, as opposed to looking at the people who're likely to commit gun crime, and the areas where most gun crime is committed? Riddle me that. How is it a solution to go after harmless people enjoying a constitutional right, as opposed to going after the people who're committing the crimes and do not care about any law you could put forth? I'm simply asking a question, no intent to debate, I'm not quoting anyone, I'm not liking any posts... I just want to see the thought process and reasoning.