Where exactly do I make that assumption? You'll notice that I didn't even call for a blanket ban on guns, just that, as a nation, we could actually sit down and have a serious talk about whether people should be able to own weapons like this one for private use:
[EDIT: I regret posting the link to the rifle, there's clearly plenty of debate about it that detracts from the main topic of discussion- and we don't know any details for definite.]
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-co...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONNECTICUT_SCHOOL...
"A law enforcement official in Washington said the attacker was a 20-year-old man with ties to the school and that one of the guns was a .223-caliber rifle."
Here's a semiauto rifle with the same calibre:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Min...
Would that one be more acceptable because it has a wood stock?
As a nation, we've decided that we don't want to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens merely because a few people misuse those rights. This is why politicians have generally decided not to push for more gun control - it's an election losing issue.
Incidentally, I'm confused by the point of that tweet. Here are some other .223 rifles:
http://s845.beta.photobucket.com/user/OldColdWarrior2009/med...
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9380/10373165_1.jpg?v=8C...
http://molot.biz/product-e/vepr223-super.jpg
For most calibers, you can find guns with many different form factors that accept bullets of that caliber. So what?
However, the idiocy of the tweet, designed only to spread FUD, the mindless retweets and ignorant comments, really piss me off. A few people have pointed out that .223 is a calibur, or 'shell size', and one of the mindless retweeters said she thinks shell size is gun specific.
i mean WTF... such epic ignorance...