Gun control avoidance

Like almost everyone I was horror stricken when I heard about the mass shooting in Colorado. When something like this happens the media asks a lot of questions, but one that they didn't ask right away was this; why does any person who is sane and reasonable need an assault riffle? I want someone to tell me when a gun that can spray hundreds of bullets before needing to be reloaded would be needed by anyone in a private home. I want someone to tell me why any person would defend the right to own such guns.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights.  Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.

The right to bear arms

Any time there is a mass shooting the country reexamines gun laws. This is normal, after Virginia tech and Columbine it happened. My views have changed over the years but not much. When the media was content to blame Columbine on video games and guns, I was pissed. Those children were the victims of relentless bullying by classmates. This idea that we can pick one cause for something and that if we changed one thing shootings would never happen again is untrue. Having said that, there is no reason that we need magazines that hold 30 bullets. It has been said before and it still holds true, the only reason for that kind of firepower is to kill as many people as possible. I find it hard to believe that any person needs to protect his family from a mob of attackers.
In countries where owning a gun is a privilege that you have to earn less people die. In Germany an angry student attacked his classmates, he couldn't get a gun so he used a hatchet. Not one person died.
Rights should come with some restrictions and certainly some responsibilities. if you are unwilling to secure your weapons you shouldn't have them. If you are a parent and you refuse to teach your children about gun safety you shouldn't have that gun.
The argument that the NRA and their ilk use is that car's are dangerous as well. This is true, but cars have a lot of restrictions on them also. Everyone would agree that someone with several DUI' s shouldn't be allowed to drive, but these same people stay silent while citizens stockpile military grade weapons. Nobody buys a gun that can fire 30 times unless he plans to use it.

Do second amendment rights take away first amendment rights?

Hey everyone,
This is a post not really related to anything.
There are a lot of things going on that really scare me. The political climate, specifically the Tea Party movement. Instead of spurring friendly debate this movement has spurred violence. Two security guards killed after the passage of the health care bill, all because Tea Party proponent Glenn Beck said "someone should kill Nancy Polocci."
People who wrote anything positive about health care was threatened with death.
Then the supreme court says that states cannot place restrictions on gun ownership. That may not seem like a big deal, but look at the effects. People now carry guns everywhere so you never know if by saying something you could wind up shot.
That is the reason for my question, if anyone can carry and brandish their weapon anywhere they want, where does that leave me?
Example, say I am at a store and someone cuts in front of me; I can no longer say "screw you man" because he could pull a weapon.
Think about public demonstrations, where does the peaceful protester go when everyone has a gun?
Then you have people like Sharon Angle asking for revolution. She has said that if you disagree with government you should use "second amendment solutions".
The first amendment is in danger of being lost because so many people feel the need to take guns everywhere with them.
Now before you think I am being paranoid think about this; in Utah you can wave your gun around if you "feel" in danger. The law also allows you to kill the other person if it is "self defense" If you kill the other guy there is nobody to speak against you. So in a way this law simply encourages people to become better marksman.
The truth is we as a nation need to stop listening to the hype and inflammatory language of those who get paid for shock and awe. We need to read, speak civilly and learn to see another point of view.