Replies

Nope, don't think I'll be defenseless. I think I can handle self-defense just as well with a Mag-44 handgun, 9mm, 12-gauge if they are close enough, and so forth. I don't think I have to have an assault weapon to defend my home. I don't see the logic in thinking JQ Public has to have assault weapons. If someone is trying to include shotguns and handguns (and by these I do not mean the small hand-held machine gun types)and some small-caliber rifles that are used for hunting, under the title of "assault weapons," then maybe the fight needs to be on changing the terminology of what is classified as "assault weapons."

I think we citizens can fight for the protection of the First Amendment without including the need for allowing "assault weapons" to be sold to Mr. & Mrs. JQ Public.

But, keep up the good fight. We need people willing to keep people aware.

"I think I can handle self-defense just as well with a Mag-44 handgun, 9mm, 12-gauge if they are close enough, and so forth."

All very nice, if the situation unfolds as you have envisioned. Usually it does not. Just ask those Korean shopkeepers in L.A. Without the sustained fire capability provided by better weapons than those you describe, you would be overwhelmed, no ands, ifs or buts. And most shots were made at ranges over 200 yards, well outside what your handgun or shotgun could manage.

If you want to limit yourself in such a fashion, go right ahead. Maybe your luck will make up for your lack of foresight.

Botttom line, if rifles along the lines of the criteria defining "assault weapons" are good enough for police, they're good enough for me. I used them when I was one of the "anointed", and I will continue to use them. Nothing has changed.