To any and all American citizens and any others who desire liberty; Q: Any idea of how a very specific group, with a myopically focused mindset and plan, will presently address the criminals choice to commit crime in America? A: By attacking liberty and keeping the choice of specific, common and decades old firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. These firearms have been designed with technology that is more than a century old! Many of these weapons have existed for a good number of decades! This anti-Second Amendment force is selfishly and emotionally rushing to action like a moth to flame, only so they may narcissistically proclaim a political triumph in criminalizing millions of Americans! At least one State is being forced to rewrite a hastily passed law with exceptions, lest they criminalize law enforcement officers for their firearm magazine capacity. After these "criminally inclined" firearms (semi-auto .223 and other caliber? rifles, specific shotguns, pistols and the like) are no longer a choice that a law-abiding citizen can make, will the homicide rate be significantly reduced or even reduced at all due to this prejudicial legislation? Why are constitutional rights attacked as the answer on how to keep a handful of criminals from horrific homicidal acts? A handful of political leaders have made speeches referencing or promoting their passionately held position and sometimes causing equally passionate or even violent responses...should free speech then be curtailed for all? Should physician prescribed drugs that are lawfully used to defend patients against the effects of disease and humanely treat pain every day, be banned because criminals, while committing criminal acts, are using these drugs too? What is the reason to collect and have the names of lawful gun owners? Will this reduce crime? I am unsure how this list of law-abiding citizens' names and personal information will reduce a criminal's propensity to commit any type of crime. So why keep a list of these citizens, whose and what purpose is being served by this invasion of privacy? Why must the armed citizen be photographed and fingerprinted, as is done when booking a prisoner of the State, if they have committed no crime? Will their DNA be taken next? Moreover, for those who cry hyperbole, who among us would have thought the bills being unveiled in Congress would ever have appeared in light of the Second Amendment? Are the acts of criminals the best standard our society can cite in deciding what constitutional and private property liberties a citizen may lawfully exercise or be limited too? In today's politically correct culture, kindergarteners are being disciplined for using their thumb and forefinger as an impromptu pistol on the playground or when not embracing a victims posture, attitude and submissiveness when bullied, strong-armed and battered (reference the ZERO tolerance for violence in most school's policy handbook-except for the real world "school of hard knocks"). The anti-Second Amendment crowd just needs to be patient, until this generation of children, schooled in victimization, comes of age to submit to their liberty usurping designs. Perhaps then, the Bill of Rights can be purposefully ignored, denied and dishonored without a constitutional patriot's oppositional voice. The term assault rifle (weapon) can mean a number of things to people, most especially those not educated in firearm nomenclature. An important characteristic that differentiates an assault rifle from other rifles is selective fire (semi-auto, three round burst and full auto); NOT a single firearm named (blindly guessing here) in these legislative bills (the AR-15 included) are manufactured with this option. So to what purpose do our politicians and Main Stream Media characterize it as such? The magazine capacity is another focus of this debate. What empowers the government to decide that arbitrary number, what exactly dictates that specific chosen number, what research is it based on? Should not the right to keep and bear arms, which the common field soldier carries in the name of the People, be ours to carry in our defense too? Many of our American neighbors are military veterans and carried automatic and semi automatics arms as teenage soldiers, why is it that government leaders have decided that they cannot be trusted today as adults to possess a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun? Our nation was founded and defended with the firearms of the day. What would this Nation's Founders think of the arguments used by those looking to restrict the right to present day arms? To disadvantage the People, in stark contrast to this government's vast array of weaponry and resources, by legislating its mistrust of the People's right to be armed with a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun betrays the People's trust and their oath of office. When all is said and done doesn't the nature of the purposeful intent in keeping, carrying or discharging a firearm, be it called an offensive/assault weapon or defensive/anti-assault weapon, really come down to who is holding it? If a criminal takes innocent life with any weapon, how much better will you feel about the loss of life if he didn't use a semi-automatic rifle? Why do some folks blindly put their's and their loved ones' fate in an organization that has embraced failure at all levels of operation? How about we make and keep the transgressor solely responsible for his or her act, be it a criminal armed attack or an attack on our constitutional rights and leave the law abiding American citizen whole. England had America to count on during the darkest days of the tyrannical madmen of WWII. The American government and the American citizens sent arms to allow the English to defend themselves...as Second Amendment rights become more and more burdened and firearm ownership restricted who will the Americans be able to turn to when tyrannical mindsets drop by? http://www.americanrifleman.org/m-articlepage.aspx?id=4537&cid=9
