Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The point is that muscle cars serve only the unique requirements of those who have no regard for safe, civil use of public highways, and they generally enjoy endangering and terrorizing those who they should be sharing our roads with as equals. This. makes. that. type. of. vehicle. a. weapon. on. public. highways. Therefore, at very least they should not be legally registered for highway use.

No offense, but that's a thoroughly idiotic point.  I'm not going to tell you why it is, you'll have to work it out yourself.

Fine, but just in case it requires clarification, I'll tell you why it's true: You don't take a muscle car on a public highway because you have the highest regard for traffic safety laws. You do that when you've got a wild hair up your ass, and the public highway is what you use to get your thrills. Slower and safer cars won't do it, but they are more than equally suitable for any practical transportation needs. While you're on that highway, you invade the space of other drivers with your aggressive maneuvers as they yield in terror while you pass at shocking speed, because that is what your lightning-quick acceleration is for when in traffic. Every day I have to deal with drivers who relish this power of intimidation, and it is plain to see their disregard for the safety of other people on the road! If you would deny any of the above, then maybe you're one of those assholes.

By the above, the muscle car is a breed which has no unique purpose for anything other than irresponsible thrill-seeking when used on public roads, and the causation of terror. Therefore, when used on public highways, Its. A. Weapon! More so than a shotgun is, which also has the unique use of putting avian food on one's table. A simple .22 is not practical for that.

How many people who own assault rifles (many which are non-repeating, but those who make our laws took no time to learn anything about guns before they wiped their dicks on the dotted line) actually carry them loaded on public highways, or loaded in any public places? I doubt those who do obey our laws anyway, and there are other reasons why they should not be at large.

I neither know nor care how many people own a specific type of a specific weapon.

Therefore, I do see a problem, but it's a practical one, not a logical one - fixed it for you.

You 'fixed' something that wasn't broken.  Well done.

However, the practical problem of confiscating weapons is no less a practical one, and liable to stir up more violence and death than it's worth. It simply isn't worth triggering our next civil war over.

Think it through:  If confiscating the guns is done properly, there won't BE a civil war.  

No offense, but how arrogant and simple are you to think this can be done without starting a war against an enemy which probably won't be much better organized than the Oregon morons, but numerous enough to cause death by at least the thousands? Americans are not Brits, they will resist, therefore they need to be dealt with delicately. They have the relative geographic factors on their side against any government which is dumb enough to go to their houses in the attempt to confiscate anything, they believe they are right because any such a policy violates their core values as Americans, and they are very determined to keep what they have.