[Nitecapt]

The problem is with definitions. To put it as succinctly as possible, once you allow a ban on a certain type of weapon, let's say "assault", the definition of that weapon can be amended or altered much more easily by the powers that be without significant legislative process. So those who say "OK, lets agree to let the government ban this type" (and there are some amongst us that may agree to that) there is no guarantee that the definition may become more liberalized as time goes on.
Please keep this in the forefront of your discussions when speaking with others about this. You may want to point to Social Security as an example. It started for the benefit of retirees, until the government passed legislation liberalizing what they could do with the money, including using it to reconstruct Germany after WWII. After that it was open season to rob from it as they saw fit.

Take the "Right of Free Speech". Certainly there are many things that are said that we all find objectionable. There had at one time been discussion about banning the "N" word, but the public was aware enough not to allow the government to do that. Why? Because as offensive as that may be, if you open the door to allow the government the option of banning one word, you have opened the door to them banning other words and NO ONE trusts the government with that power any more than we can trust them to be prudent with gun control.

We will not win this battle with slogans like "guns don't kill people, only people kill people" or "Blaming guns on killing is like blaming pencils for spelling errors". There are in many ways correct, but people have kissed off these slogans. We need to appeal to their own mistrust of the government and how much power they are willing to grant the government.

Thank you and I will now remove myself from my soap box.
Ray