Follow-Up Comment

A follow-up to the previous comment:

Clarification: The AK-47s used for hunting that I was referring to are semi-auto versions of the weapon, not the full-auto versions. That is, the "assault weapon" version of the gun, not the "assault rifle" version. The problem with the AK is that it's not particularly accurate in its common incarnation, so it's not very well suited to hunting.

And one more thing about anti-gun legislators: they're not only acting illegally (in terms of the Constitution), they're twisting the arms of legal gun-owners. That is, law-abiding citizens are forced to comply with the illegal legislation (an oxymoron on the surface, but it happens a lot) or become criminals. The anti-gunners would then point to defiant *formerly* law-abiding citizens as further "proof" that their illegal laws are correct. A blindly law-abiding citizen can't preserve his rights in the face of that, and committing civil disobedience in the case of firearms would get one killed by a government out of control (BATFE and FBI). The irony is that people in power don't need to have their own guns because they have security who do the dirty work of protection for them. Kind of like that hypocritical racist Rosie O'Donnell, who railed against handguns and backpedaled when it came to light that her kid's bodyguard carried a concealed handgun.

I have yet to hear one cogent and compelling reason from anyone for restricting 2nd Amendment rights.