There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.

This is still off topic, but since it's not directly related to who has (or
is) the bigger dick, I'll reply. As a gun owner, you should know this
about "cop-killer" bullets:

The bullet was invented by police officers in the 1960's to fire at suspects
hiding behind objects or wearing bullet-resistant vests. These specialty
bullets were only sold to police and were not available in stores anywhere
in the United States. While often labeled "Teflon bullets," teflon had
nothing to do with penetrating protective vests (the teflon simply helps
reduce the abrasion to the gun's barrel). The important feature instead was
their denser core, usually made out of tungsten.

Despite the phrase "cop-killer," only police used these bullets, and even
then extremely rarely. No officer has ever been shot at, let alone killed,
with such a bullet. Nor did the law even deal with bullets that might
actually be used to penetrate bullet-resistant vests. Most rifle ammunition
will do this, though to have banned these bullets would have essentially
outlawed most hunting.

As police know, there is still another irony attached to this discussion:
unless the intended victim has protection, these bullets have less stopping
power than hollow point bullets since they more easily pass through their
victim and they are more likely than other bullets to wound than kill.

This law changed nothing. Companies continued only selling these bullets to
police.

And this about "assault" rifles:

There is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has
reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice
Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the ban's
effect on gun violence "has been uncertain." When those same authors
released their updated report in August looking at crime data up through
2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

The reason for these findings is simple: There is nothing unique about the
guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase "assault weapon"
conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in
fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic
hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity
and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.

The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely
different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be
gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun. This law had nothing to
do with machine guns.

Long guns are used in something like 2% of gun-related crime. Assault
weapons, something like .02%. It was feel-good legislation. I agree that
the gunshow loophole should be closed. Background checks should be
mandatory and thorough. But the assault rifle band was useless.