Very poor analogies. In any case, the comment (yours? someone else's?) that under a democratic president guns would be banned makes no sense as we have had quite a few of them over the last 200 years and guns are still legal. What we need are less assault rifles. Period. No need. You want to shoot/target practice or animals for meat ... no issue with that.
Actually, the analogy fits. You are blaming an inanimate object for being misused by evil, criminal people. Cars are safe, when used properly. Cars have also been used in mass killings. Not to mention all the accidental deaths caused with cars.
Exponentially more than with firearms.
When you assert that we need fewer (not 'less') "assault rifles".... who are you to be telling people what kind of firearm they can buy for legal purposes? "Well, you can have a revolver, but we need to get rid of all those semi-auto pistols... they just hold too much ammo..." leads to .... "we really need to get rid of all those handguns, because you can't hunt with them" which leads to "well, you really don't NEED a firearm that holds more than one cartridge... a single shot will do anything you need to do" and then "you really don't need any firearm other than a single shot shotgun"....
White vans are used in more robberies and other crimes than just about any other vehicle. Would you suggest we ban them? Do you think that would reduce crime?
What you (I'm guessing, don't know for sure) call an "assault rifle" is a legitimate sporting rifle. It is used in target practice, sport shooting competitions, and hunting. Just like any other semi-automatic (autoloading) rifle.
And, there are many, many liberal, democratic politicians who openly support the banning and confiscation of firearms. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind.... along with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi,...... I could give you a rather large list.