On the third anniversary of the horrific Parkland massacre, the White House released a statement challenging Congress to pursue gun control in this legislative session. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas has already introduced HR 127, which is a gun-grabber’s dream bill. HR 127 would be a nightmare for gun owners, but it is a long shot to pass. However, just because one bill is unlikely to pass doesn’t mean gun owners can relax, because the White House’s statement specifically called for three avenues of attack on the Second Amendment: a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a new assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. This statement from the White House echoes the President’s platform during the election.
Overturning the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
There’s a good chance you’ve never heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”). The President mentioned repealing this law first in his policy statement during the election, which indicates it’s a high priority. Why is this law so important?
The PLCAA was signed into federal law by President George W. Bush in 2005 and provides protection for firearms manufacturers and dealers from legal liability if crimes are committed with their products. This protection does not extend to lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers for defective products, breaches of contract, criminal misconduct, or negligent entrustment. The intention behind the law is to protect the firearms industry from liability resulting from criminals using their products to commit crimes. Previously, gun manufacturers and dealers were sued for negligence (somewhat successfully) by survivors or the family of victims for crimes where firearms were used. The prevailing theory was that the firearms industry should have known their products would be used by evildoers, and thus, be held financially liable for their crimes.
This law has been unsuccessfully challenged by lawsuits several times since its enactment, but one case, Gustafson v. Springfield Armory, is still pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
The PLCAA is an important piece of legislation protecting the firearms industry from what has been described as death by a thousand cuts. The ability to bury the industry with lawsuits could cause smaller companies to simply shut down under the legal burden of defending themselves. Unfortunately, because no one has heard of the PLCAA, a bill to repeal it won’t generate hundreds of thousands of phone calls and letters to Congress like a new assault weapons ban surely will.
A New Assault Weapons Ban
The very next item on the President’s policy list is a new assault weapons ban (“AWB”). It specifically mentions learning from the “mistakes” of the 1994 AWB, which then-Senator Joseph Biden helped pass.
The 1994 AWB banned outright the manufacture and transfer of certain specifically named semi-automatic firearms and created the “two feature” test to define “assault weapons” that weren’t mentioned by name. For example, a semi-automatic rifle banned under the statute had to first have a detachable magazine, and then two military-style features such as a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug. It also banned the manufacture of new rifle or pistol magazines that held more than 10 rounds, unless those magazines were marked for military or law enforcement use.
This ban grandfathered in previously legally owned weapons, but no prohibited firearm could be acquired or manufactured after September 13, 1994. Thankfully, the drafters of the AWB included a “sunset provision,” which stated that the ban would expire 10 years later—in 2004. Attempts to review the AWB thus far have been unsuccessful.
President Biden’s policy paper establishes that under the new AWB, existing so-called “assault weapons” would have to be registered as National Firearms Act (“NFA”) firearms, which would cost gun owners $200 for every “assault weapon” they own. The NFA currently requires a $200 tax for many items such as a machine gun, short-barreled rifle and shotgun, or suppressor.
The new AWB calls for a ban on the manufacture or sale of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, regulates existing NFA items, proposes a buyback of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, and aims to reduce the “stockpiling of weapons.”
Universal Background Checks
Another legislative priority for the new administration is universal background checks. The Obama administration briefly attempted such a bill after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but it was defeated by a filibuster in the Senate. President Biden’s policy paper lists universal background checks as his third highest priority.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) is currently utilized in commercial firearms sales that require the completion of a Form 4473. However, many states allow the private sale of firearms that do not require any sort of background check. President Biden plans to close this “loophole” and require NICS checks on all firearm sales—including private sales.
Additional Presidential Gun Control Plans
The plan also calls for banning those adjudicated by the Social Security Administration as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, fugitives from justice (already prohibited), and people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from owning, possessing, or transporting firearms.
President Biden’s plan calls to end the “Charleston Loophole.” This so-called loophole allows a Federal Firearms License (“FFL”) dealer to complete a firearm transaction if a “deny” response from the FBI is not received within three business days.
President Biden plans to enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, gun kits, and gun parts.
What About Congress?
The current political landscape is complicated. Democrats have a 10-seat majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate is a 50-50 tie between Republicans and Democrats, with the tie-breaking vote going to the Vice President. In 1994, the federal Assault Weapons Ban was partly responsible for a 54-seat swing that switched control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1954. Many anti-gun Congressional leaders were serving at that time, and might be hesitant to repeat those events. Further complicating the passage of major gun control is the Senate filibuster.
The Senate filibuster is a procedure in which a group of senators, usually along political lines, attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the proposed legislation. If new legislation is presented that would erode the Second Amendment, most Republican senators would likely join in a filibuster to stop its passage.
The last bump in the road for any potential gun control is the Supreme Court. With a presumptive pro-gun majority on the court, gun control advocates would prefer to avoid a landmark decision that declares an assault weapons ban unconstitutional.
What Could Happen?
The most likely avenues of attack are repealing the PLCAA and passing a new universal background check bill, because an AWB with the potential to pass would generate intense political scrutiny and backlash. That is, people write letters and make phone calls over assault weapons bans, but we don’t see the same level of engagement over obscure liability laws.
What Can I Do?
There’s a lot you can do to help! The first thing you can do is get to know your representatives. Don’t wait until there’s a gun control bill coming up for a vote; send them a polite email right now that lays out your concerns and why you support the right to keep and bear arms. Go to town hall meetings, ask questions, and be polite and professional. Election day is not the only time for your voice to be heard, and putting a face to the name is an effective practice.
Another great option is to get involved locally. Many individual states have state rifle and pistol associations, some of which have been very successful at lobbying their state legislators and influencing key political decisions. Make sure to do your research on your state’s association, because not all of them are created equal.
And finally, be a living example of a “good guy” gun owner. When the media slanders gun owners as aggressive maniacs, be the person who pops into your non-gun owning friends’ minds: “Wait, Bob owns guns and he’s not like that.” Putting a name and a face to gun rights can change how people who otherwise don’t have an opinion on these matters vote.
The Future
Hope isn’t lost. Yes, the Second Amendment faces a tough federal battle for the next few years. That means now, more than ever, it’s important for law-abiding gun owners to get involved. Take someone shooting, join your state associations, call your representative, and most importantly, stay vigilant.
For questions about proposed gun legislation, contact U.S. LawShield and ask to speak to your Independent Program Attorney.
The information provided in this publication is intended to provide general information to individuals and is not legal advice. The information included in this publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication without the prior written consent of U.S. LawShield, to be given or withheld at our discretion. The information is not a substitute for, and does not replace the advice or representation of a licensed attorney. We strive to ensure the information included in this publication is accurate and current, however, no claim is made to the accuracy of the information and we are not responsible for any consequences that may result from the use of information in this publication. The use of this publication does not create an attorney-client relationship between U.S. LawShield, any independent program attorney, and any individual.
You guys DO know that the ammosexual Reichwingnuts have been clutching their pearls and falling on their fainting couches wailing “thar comin’ to take yer guns” since Saint Ray-gun enacted “The Firearm Owners Protection Act” which contained a provision banning the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986. That was 35 years ago, now can you name ONE time a lawful gun owner had his weapon seized? Do you REALLY take issue with denying mentally or emotionally challenged people the right to bear arms? I have a CHL, I have several weapons, I DON’T feel the need to brandish my Bushmaster at the grocery store in fear of an attack by a rabid zucchini and I don’t think I need an armory complete with grenade launchers to protect my home; if anyone does, maybe they need to move to a better neighborhood and/or seek professional help for their paranoiac delusions!
Ted the anonymity allows you to spew. If you stop with the triggered liberal name calling and diagnoses to make your argument it’ll go better for you.
Who needs a 200 mph Mazeratti? The speed limit is 70. You don’t get it do you Ted?
How you ever thought, some people just can’t get up in afford to move. And everybody don’t feel the same way you feel. And how to protect themselves and their family. And you making hand grenades plus grenade launchers I believe. You are steering the conversation a different way. What they are doing is Morley constitutional racist tyranny Holocaust genocide wrong
There was guns taken away in New Orleans, after the hurricane. And there is video proof that it happened!
You know Ted, honestly I believe people should have the right to own and have the same type of firearms that these government terrorists use so that way when we need to fight back with equal force we can. Stop giving them the power over you and stop contributing to it with fear. They go around and they do whatever they want while we sit back silent. When are people going to say enough and step in the middle of it. It starts with reasonable requests yes, but those requests are going to become more and more unreasonable unless we nip it in the bud before it gets to that point. It’s not about needing a grenade or launcher it’s about them trying to make sure when it comes down to it, we don’t have the means to fight back.
Ted – in spite of your snarky comments it is NOT for you to determine what responsible Law Abiding Citizens do or do not need for their personal needs.
Are they coming for your guns – both Biden and Bobby Frank have indeed said so. Nothing ‘paranoid’ about taking them at their word.
Well said.
I have to take issue with Ted’s comment. First, it seems frivolous to me and tries to minimize the gun protection laws. My problem with his uneducated view of Red Flag laws is who and how will determine who is mentally or emotionally challenged. Certainly not Biden or the democrat wackos in congress. Ted further thinks it is his prerogative to tell me what weapons I should own and if I disagree with his ideas then I should move or seek professional help. It is exactly Teds sort of thinking that makes me wary of those who support overturning someone’s constitutional rights based on speculation. Ted should make decisions about his own gun ownership, however my decisions within the laws are mine, not his.
Starting to agree more with folks like Ted.
You and ted need to take off your tinfoil hats and jump on the team.
Why? There are literally millions of guns that have not and never will shoot anybody. If people can sue a gun manufacturer, next they’ll be suing the liquor manufacturers and distributors. After all, they know that there are folks who will drink and drive and kill someone with their vehicle.
How about using the stove manufacturers next time theres a cooking fire?
We have tons of gun laws already. Enforce them. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a people problem and a societal problem.
There are more people killed with bats, knives and screwdrivers than guns; why not regulate those things??
Remember. “When guns are outlawed, o ly outlaws will have guns.”
Ted, I believe the “danger” that Gomez and Robert are expressing are valid, for example; your “rant” above could be construed as a “crazy persons” rant and could “red flag” a government employee to pay you a visit, check to see if you’ve ever gotten mad/verbally aggressive, so on and so forth. I think the “danger” is a slippery slope. Who knows how our current president and VP would suggest they find out about someones “mental state”, look how easy our fellow citizens are being “cancelled” by expressing common/widespread oppositional view points, contrary to the “leftest” agendas!
Just think we better be careful what “rights” we allow the government to infringe upon! The constitution was written for a specific reason, to protect our “God given rights”!
Ted sounds like a liberal. People like different firearms. If they ban or take a certain one, then they might what the ones you like . I feel we should stick together and I think Mike is right about Ted’s rant.
I think the article was informational and gave more background on the subject than most people think about. I believe the constitution gives me the right to decide to or not to purchase a weapon of my choice. I don’t agree with Ted that it has been 35 years and no one has lost a gun that was a law abiding citizen. As a retired corrections employee I have seen where law abiding citizens became criminals because they owned a gun. Look at what occurred when two law abiding citizens stood to protect their property and persons during riots. Your own VP bailed out the rioters and gave them a pass!! You only now see anything about any of the rioters looking at charges yet they destroyed Millions of dollars in property. I have always believed a locked door only keeps an honest person honest, a thief will find a way to get past the lock. Ted leave your windows open and doors left unlocked and see how long you trust your government to protect you. They have been trying to defund the police at every opportunity they see.
If they take the guns away from us we should carry a sword call machete and see what they going to do about that I got to defend myself against criminal I got to protect my family it was given to us why are Founding Father the Democrat demonic come and get a sleepy Joe I’m waiting for you
Government has absolutely no constitutional authority to limit or take rights period. Government is of enumerated powers for a reason. Our 2nd amendment only limits government further, is instructions to government to not infringe.
People like Ted fail to realize that government infringement in small steps is to try and deceive small minded people into giving up our rights in small increments. In the end they are all gone if given consent.
I do not consent nor will I comply with unconstitutional tyrannical laws.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Thanks for the quotes. I’ve read them before, and always great to revisit them
Amen, Tom Snyder! Thank You.
yes, no doubt that Ted sounds unhinged or at least, as some have said, snarky, condescending, and likely arrogant and indeed, depending on who’s looking at what he says, though no doubt his intentions are ill conceived sarcasm, he could be considered unstable.
Important to remember is that these involve constitutional rights and the atmosphere today not just in some governmental quarters, but also in the media, and in the ever powerful, overcontrolling world of big tech, is control and conformity with what some powerful figures and companies believe is the right way to behave, the “right” way to think. This flies right in the face of the individual freedoms upon which this nation is based and the limitation of governmental powers. All amendments in the bill of rights are either currently under assault or may be down the line.
I’m a Democrat, a gun owner, have a CCW license and have insurance with Law Shield. I drive like a little old man (I am one) so the police have no reason to interact with me. I see no need to put on all the tac gear I bought during the pandemic (Just for fun, mind you) and attack a Federal Building in any state. I own an AR 15 and stocked up on ammo, when I could find it (I did find it, but it was as scarce as “hen’s teeth”) I don’t threaten people with my firearms, don’t brag about them and don’t engage in long discussions about them. (Except with like-minded friends and relatives, while we’re discussing that kind of thing)
Because I fly under the radar, don’t act like a big-mouth gun nut, and mind my own business, I have NO fear of a background check. I just bought a Sig 365XL. Filled out the digital form and passed, because I’m not a criminal and don’t call attention to myself. (Kinda like a “Gray Man”, on a daily basis, for the last 20 years at least)
There are folks out there that are dangerously psychotic, delusional, self-motivated to perpetrate violence and would attack anyone, regardless of which side of the aisle you occupy. There are criminals who should not have any access to any form of weapon. Can we please just agree to discuss things in a non-insulting, “We’re ALL Americans, let’s do this together” frame of mind? We’d have lost WW2 with the kind of division we see today.
What regulations WOULD the Right agree to, in order to stop this horrible gun violence? What actual well-thought-out system WOULD be acceptable to collectors, target shooters, survivalists, self-defense purists and other LEGAL gun-owners? Somebody make a list of legal, responsible and equitable solutions and get the resolution to the situation underway. (Instead of sitting at our keyboards and sniping at each other)
Sorry David, “the horrible gun violence” you speak of is simply a straw man to mask the real intentions of the left which is control of you and your assets and your land and your cars and your children and what you eat and…what else ya got? The violence is horrible but real and since you live in it’s midst if you do not retain the ability to control it, it will decimate you. The sequence in history is 1st they regulate. 2nd they confiscate. 3rd murder by government. Well documented in the video accessible on utube “Innocents Betrayed”. YOU may have no evil intentions yet there are those in “seats of power” who do. The last set of riots brought the subtle threats of the guillotine (maybe you missed it). Necklacing and the French revolution were not bad movies but real events that we are dangerously near repeating and dangerously near to forgetting!
Agree & Well Said @ Harvey
Ted is crazy.
Ron at 2050Hrs
Ted and David need to wake up and smell the coffee. The 2 Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights, not for hunting, or target shooting, it’s there to give us (the citizens, not subjects) the means to defend ourselves from the Tyrannical, self serving, government! That is precisely why they (the gov.)are B. S. Crazy to gain control of your weapons.
Did you know that there are more armed citizens in this country than all the armed services and police combined.
During WWII, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was asked why they didn’t invade the U. S. His answer was because of the number of civilian owned fire arms in the U. S. would amount to a rifle behind every blade of grass.
An “Assault” Weapon is a fully automatic rifle, a.k.a. a “Machine Gun” – m4, m2, M16 (in all its variations). Guns do not assault people. Mentally deluded and angry people, with a criminal mindset, attack and kill people. I have never been mugged by a tek-9, a glock, a STEN gun, an M60, or a 30.06 deer rifle. It takes a human index finger (or a hunting dogs paw on occasion, by mistake) to pull that trigger. Ar-15 and ak-47 clones for the civilian market are single shot per pull of trigger firearms used in hunting, taking out wild invasive vermin like Feral Hogs, & Coyotes. They are also used for hunting deer, going to shooting competitions, and for home defense. The civilian ar-15 and ak-47 clones are not fielded by any standing Armed Branch of any military on the planet. This is because they are not ASSAULT WEAPONS! Blame the fool pulling the trigger, not the tool they happen to be using. More people in human history have been killed in war, and murdered in peaceful times by edged and blunt force weapons, than have ever been shot while minding their own business at a 7-11.
To David – the liberal’s comment: “Which laws would the Right agree to to stop the horrible gun violence?” I suggest the starting with the ones that are currently law and just enforce them. Let’s try that for a while and see what happens.
Thank you Tom. US Navy Commander – Retired, SEAL TEAM 4 Donald Armstrong, Tom, I’m posting your quotes on a few sites tonight. Thank you! Some of us have brains, some of the brains out there need to be some examined. God Bless US and the united States of America! We need all of you!!!! Yes, we need to be on the best of behavior these days!!! Ted, you REALLY MAY need some help! Good luck with that!!!