Why should firearms be different than high-speed sports cars, alcohol or tobacco?

As these psychotics continue to shoot up public places - schools, churches, restaurants, and shopping malls - continuing to add to the tragic body count, the "usual suspects" (liberals, the media, etc) start up the predictable harping their usual cries for gun control. And as they do, they continue to display inconsistent logic, hypocritical standards and their whole lack of respect for and knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They employ tactics like asking gun owners "Why do you need a fill the blank with the appropriate firearm or associated accessory?"

I would counter their question with a question: Do we question why someone buys a car capable going twice as fast as any speed limit anywhere? No, we are satisfied that because they want it, that’s good enough with the common sense to say if they misuse it and kill somebody (or several somebodies, they're going to jail). So, why should a semi-automatic weapon be any different?

Why do we allow someone to buy unlimited amounts of alcohol - on the face of it, way beyond the amount that one human could safely consume - and yet content ourselves with the common sense that if they overdrink and hurt somebody or somebodies they go to jail? Why would a semiautomatic firearm be any different?

And, it should be pointed out; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.

Why do we allow the sale of tobacco - a known carcinogen and literally a killer of millions - that has no positive benefit other than to quench someone else’s desire for it. Yet, we let people buy it without questioning why they do it. And they're allowed to buy it with no special permits, waiting periods or background checks. And when people misuse tobacco, nobody throws a hissy and calls for its ban. So why should a firearm be treated differently than tobacco.

And, remember; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.

Its called freedom and individual liberties and, oh yes, in the case of firearms it's the legal premise that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” just like the Second Amendment in the Bill of RIGHTS to the US Constitution says.

Yet, one has to ask, why is it that liberals are oh-so-eager to deny those Constitutionally-protected rights of gun owners and/or to legislate them to death to the point they practially don’t exist? And why do they throw a hissy whenever anyone suggests a law requiring a valid ID to vote? Why should firearms be treated differently than the right to vote? "An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."* (The Patriot)

Because, as these gun-grabbing liberals demonstrate more and more every day with their inconsistencies and lack of sound logic, to them “gun control” is only about getting more and more control over everyone else and has little or nothing at all to do with guns.

The only legitimate version of gun control is the one that allows you to hit what you’re aiming at.

*Emmerich, Roland, director. The patriot. Columbia Pictures, 2000.