A few distinctions have been made that I find rather interesting.
Carrying at the store, at the park, and at a school. How are they different? Kids can be at all of them, but is one considered some kind of hallowed ground? I'm thankful that in the state of Oregon, if I'm carrying to the store and need to go to a school, I don't have to disarm. Threats can appear anywhere, including "gun free zones" where so many mass shootings seem to occur.
The term "Assault Weapon" has come up a few times as well. In this country, you can own many types of guns. Machine guns and short barreled rifles (SBRs) you must file federal paperwork to own. It is a few months worth of waiting and a few hundred dollars in fees, but if you do all this, that MP5 (full auto sub machine gun) or M4 (what our soldiers use overseas) can be yours.
I own a pistol for defense of myself, those I care about, and if the situation arises, the safety of total strangers.
I own a rifle because they are more effective then pistols.
Things that threaten us will more then likely be of the two legged variety, let's not kid ourselves. If I'm trying to defend something, why not equip myself with the tools that will allow me the greatest chance of victory?
So... I also own an AR15. It's a nice rifle, and if I'm fighting people, I'd much rather have that then my .45 handgun or a bolt action rifle. That bolt action in .30-06 would be really nice for hunting though! Nevermind that the .30-06 cartridge is a ton more powerful then my 5.56mm cartridge in my AR, and has much greater effective range.
And lastly, we don't have "good people." Military and police are exactly that, military and police. We are given arms to have the ability to overthrow the government (military and police included since they are part of the .gov), or have an armed rebellion if necessary. During Katrina, the police were illegally confiscating or stealing guns. Are those are the "good people" that are being talked about?
Our rights to own arms is fundamental. Our rights to own arms that are effective at fighting is also fundamental. Is it in the spirit of the constitution to restrict the arms the public will have to those that would not be capable in battle? Nowhere in the 2nd do they restrict what kind of weapons the people can have, and for good reason.
ETA: I too am having a good time reading this threat. Everyone's opinions are interesting, and I respect them all even if I don't agree with them.