My challenge with the frantic "do something!" mentality is as follows -

The AR-15 is a gas operated semi-automatic. Anything that functionally bans this, also takes out the Remington 742, Browning BAR, Rem 1100, 11-87, Beretta 310, and a host of other hunting guns that are gas operated semi-automatic.

Anything that just bans semi-auto rifles in .22 caliber, bans tens of millions of .22 rimfire rifles.

Now we are down to the "scary looking" guns, which one misinformed soul here already called out, because they "look like machine guns". Who gets to decide what's too "scary looking" to be owned? Is camo "scary"? What about the Punisher logo? Does it qualify?

What about the machine guns or sub-machine guns that LOOK JUST LIKE OTHER GUNS? The Glock 18 is one of the finest sub guns built, and looks almost identical to the Glock 17. Ruger made the Mini-14 and the 10/22 as full auto years ago. Does that put those two in the "scary" category?

The scariest thing to me is folks who have absolutely no clue making decisions about what others are allowed to own.

And specifically addressing the "gun nut" comment, I have always found that highly offensive. How does a man with knowledge of ballistics and weapons characteristics, who collects firearms that he finds interesting, peg your weird-o-meter, but some 35 year old who plays video games obsessively, or a grown man who engages in fantasy sports, or memorizes statistics about sports games, or pays serious money for season tickets to pro sports games, or spends the equivalent of a house on restoring a car that will never be worth what he has in it, is somehow normal?

We all have our own interests. As long as it is a legal activity, maybe you shouldn't pass judgement.