SRS made an excellent point (16 Apr 2007 10:29), a point which has been swallowed up in a classic Mudcat battle.

Obviously there is some strong feeling against being disarmed: fine--even though it's evident that the 2nd Amendment was to address two fears: the fear of an overpowerful government and the fear of a standing army--both based on recent experience-- (at the time of the Bill of Rights)-- with the British government. Standing army is obviously now a fact and, as has been already noted, I think, if the US government wanted to do so, the presence of guns in households would be no barrier to having its way. Fear of this seems to be confined these days to the same giant intellects who fear the "UN black helicopters".

At any rate, the point SRS made was:   who needs to have automatic and semiautomatic weapons?

Both of Cho's weapons were semi-automatic. If not so, the carnage would not have been quite so easy for him to accomplish. Also the size of the clip could possibly be regulated.

Keep in mind that according to reports (AP, I think), none of the dead victims had less than 3 bullets in him or her. The semi-automatic nature of his weapons played a role in this.