No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.

But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.

The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from our Government is out of date by 300 years. Lets just say any Government decided to turn against its people. They have the ability to pin point a bomb on a dot from 10,000 miles away and they are supposed to be scared of your rifle and handgun? I don't think so.

Time to find a different argument.

Because the preservation of freedom is just as much about stopping people from doing things as it is about letting people do them, since true, universal freedom is an impossible paradox.

Therefore we categorize them. Mr. Thompson's freedom to live is of a greater importance than Ms. Smith's right to buy something she can shoot for a minute straight without reloading, having been demonstrated that said item has little use for any reason other than infringing on Mr. Thompson's right to life.

Except for, you know. Protecting Ms. Smith's right to life.

It has nowhere to go but up?

In any case this:

"As we all know Obama and his administration are working all over the country to put into place stronger gun laws or bans on certain gun (or all guns)."

Is really, really silly. The action the Obama administration is taking is nowhere close to banning "all guns". Only very specific kinds of guns, as well as certain magazines, are being targeted. Could everyone, at the very least, drop the 'banning all guns' nonsense? Heck, even what's been proposed here probably won't pass congress.

And what threatens Ms Smith to the degree that she needs high levels of continuous fire?

The only thing that line of thought could lead into is the line that everyone needs all kinds of weapons for fear that somebody else could have them, and then there goes society.

I'm willing to concede that, in the short term and before there is a viable alternative, some people may need some sort of firearm, but nothing more than what is necessary to ward off an intruder or at least keep them pinned down until the police can arrive. Hell, i'd even be willing to concede matters of target practice, but even then, high-capacity clips have no good reason for existence.

Things which are benevolent or benign are welcome in free societies. Things inherently malignant are not.

Are you serious? This is not something that is worth impeaching the president for. You gun nuts may love your guns so much, but the government is right to place some restrictions and regulations. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing, something must be done to stop these killing sprees and homicides (over 500 just in Chicago last year!). I'm glad Obama is going through with this, an organisation like the NRA shouldn't be controlling the government like they have!

I'm not going to get into this except to say Obama is being a slim ball by riding the emotions of Sandy Hook. If he wanted to look at gun laws he should have taken 6-12 months to let the raw emotions fade. He's being very manipulative of the American people.

I already contacted my congressmen: one senator and one representative are pro-gun the other senator is pro-gun control. Guess which parties they are part of? I don't see how they have changed this issue to a partisan one, but they certainly did.

LOL so great!

Let's start prohibition again, because drunk drivers kill people...seriously this "we need to ban assault rifles" is just utterly ridiculous.