Since the Republicans control the House of Rep, Obama is now planning to resort to executive power for more gun control (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html?ref=fb&src=sp ). Does he not realize that, even though society can never be 100% safe, the reason why we're so unsafe, in addition to be less free, is because the State is armed and the people are mostly disarmed and that more gun control = more peaceful citizens disarmed and more criminals armed to the teeth?
Of course, every Republican, too, except Dr. Paul is pretty terrible on the issue of gun ownership (even Clarence Thomas tries to use the BS argument that guns are for hunting, and so certain weapons should be illegal), so maybe they'll cave into Obama's demands.
What's wrong with someone owning a fully automatic handgun, without restrictions if they want to? I don't get it as the evidence has proved that the gun control usually hurts good people and more often than not helps bad people. I don't own a firearm and probably never will, even though that's being very irresponsible, but it's downright dangerous to liberty to have the state armed and the people not armed.
If I'm not remembering wrong, Obama promised that he won't raise gun control.
It's about creating utopia. Nobody should ever have to die from a gun, and fewer guns means moving in the direction of utopia. Statistically a government monopoly on guns is probably the most dangerous public policy. The state was the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century, and none of that did or could have happened without gun control. But it doesn't matter whether utopia is actually achievable, or whether the attempt to get there causes more deaths. What matters is that guns are scary and in utopia there are no guns.
Of course authoritarian states have always tried to disarm it's citizens. The evil and the utopian often have the same aims.