Where is The Pelican wrong about guns? I'm not an expert on firearms. There are probably a bunch of people on this board who know a TON more about firearms than me, but I do own several firearms and have a good idea of what is what. And that non-expert knowledge is far greater than The Wig's knowledge. There are some basic concepts that The Wig is wrong about and he's not alone. Many people don't know the differences between certain weapons on a base-level. One: The CT shooter did not use automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are firearms where the trigger can be held down and the rounds keep on firing. The CT shooter used semi-automatic weapons. A semi-auto weapons is one where you have to pull the trigger for each round to fire. A semi-auto is different than, say, bolt-action or pump-action where, say, with a pump-action, you must chamber a new round by pulling the pump-handle. Bolt-actions are very similar to pump-action in that to chamber a new round, you must open the breech to extract and chamber a new round. Two: "There are limitations on the first amendment (libel and slander), therefore there should be limitations on the second amendment", Howard Stern paraphrased. There are already limitations on the second amendment. Example: A 12 year old cannot purchase a rifle. Depending on jurisdiction, a convicted felon who has served his time cannot own a firearm or is subject to limitations on where he can possess a firearm (in TX, it is limited to the convicted felon's house). A 20 year old cannot purchase a pistol. Machine guns have essentially been illegal since 1934. Three: "The founders never envisioned any firearm other than muskets when they wrote the 2nd amendment", Howard Stern paraphrased. The problem with the concept of limiting the bill of rights to those things available at the time of the writing of the Constitution is that the founders, for example with the first amendment regarding free-speech, were most familiar with pamphlets, newspapers, soap-boxes in the city square, etc. The founders had NO IDEA that free-speech could ever be extended to radio, television, satellites, social-media, the internet, etc. If we are going to be okay with limiting access to firearms more under the guise of "the founders never envisioned an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon", then we provide precedent to limit the first amendment more under the guise of "the founders never envisioned something called Twitter and Facebook being used to organize violent flash-mobs." I know, TL;DR. Sorry.