Dave I understand not thinking owning a assault weapon is necessary. The problem with the labeling of guns as a assault weapon, is in the definition. California is the trend setter. We have banned "Assault Weapons". Here is the rub, a thumb hole stock is an assault weapon, a rifle or shot gun with a pistol grip is an assault weapon. A gun with a magazine greater than 10 rounds is an assault weapon.
The problem is most weapons used to kill people in crimes are not bought and registered at the local gun store. I guarantee you, in California when somebody is shot with an AR or AK weapon, with a 30-50 round clip, pistol grip, or automatic firing, it wasn't purchased here or anywhere legally(ie the black market). So what happens is citizens keep getting restricted in what they can buy for a defense weapon or hunting weapon, while the criminals will keep buying what they need. Eventually as our gun rights are whittled away, we will have no rights. It's a slow erosion process with the same end result.
Men have historically used millitary rifles to hunt with, after serving duty. After WW1 people bought up M1903 and M1917 Enfields to hunt with, they were cheap and the ex soldiers were familiar with them. After WW2 people bought 1911 .45's and M1 Garands and carbine for self defense and hunting. When the Automatics started showing up, they were not widely sold after service. After the Gulf war Ar15's were starting to be made in semi-automatics and sold for hunting. The AR platform rifle is quite slick, with the ability to attach different sights, lights, grips etc.. Now alot of younger generation of ex military hunters are using AR's in 223 and 308 caliber to hunt. It's a great design, light weight and dependable. When the hunt, they don't have auto selectors, or 50-100 clips, they have 5-10 round magazines depending on local gun laws and hunting regs.
Ultimately it is rediculous to change policy and create laws based on isolated incidents perpretrated by crazy people. The incident in Colorado just as easily could have playe out as a young disturbed man, making a pipe bomb from fertilizer, or a molicot coctail and walking into a theatre with a piece of chain and a lock. Locking the exits and lighting the building on fire, or blowing everyone to bits. Everybody still dies, but do we then create laws that you can't buy gas and a bottle, or pieces of metal pipe and fertilizer?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Instead of going after guns, why not go after the nuts who buy them? A better screening process, a ten day wait period from purchase to pickup, and instant background check system. All of these are pretty effective deterent. Then establish better systems to regulate illegal sale of any weapon, and stop illegal traffic across borders who bring in weopons for criminals.
It's a sad day when a sick person goes on a killing spree with stuff they legally bought and were not screened out by the sales process. But this is also a rare event, that is blown out of proporsion, by people like Obama who has an anti gun agenda that is on the record. I know Mitt is an idiot, but at least he has sided with the NRA to promise to protect hunting rights and the right to bear arms. Will he keep that promise? Who knows, but I have no doubts about Obama's objectives on this subject.
Will Romny raise taxes(not if he wants to ever stay in Politics as a Republican.) Will Obama - yes. I'm not saying he's a good choice, just a lesser evil.