from his loverboy, pootie.

He has no choice but to try and sell more guns now for the NRA instead of passing legislation he knows will reduce deaths , but refuses to do. He has no value on life , except is own.

I think that this time we should focus much more exclusively on the traits that actually do have any bearing on whether or not a weapon can legitimately be classified as an assault weapon, and consciously avoid even mentioning traits that do not have any such bearing, let alone actually banning any weapons on the basis of such irrelevant traits.

The problem with the assault weapons ban, as it has to date been written, is that while it would ban the AR-15 and many other weapons with similar cosmetic features, it would leave legal many other weapons that have the same traits of the AR-15 that are actually relevant to the discussion of the danger posed by assault weapons.

For the benefit of any who do not already know, Capacity and speed of reloading are the key traits that we need to be concerned with. The bottom line is that those two things are the ball game when it comes to how effective a weapon is in an assault role. Even a bump stock or other device that dramatically increases the rate of fire is actually more of a liability than an asset if the weapon is limited to such a low capacity that reloading takes longer than needing to reload again. And the more quickly a weapon needs to be reloaded and the longer reloading it takes, the more opportunity there is to safely address the threat.

I think we can get a lot more support for regulating those things, regarding which there are very clearly valid public safety implications, than we can for regulating things like pistol grips, for which there are not. History has indeed already shown us that we get a great deal of opposition to laws that ban things it makes sense to ban when they also ban things that it does not, so I'd like to see us not make that same mistake again.

3 rounds max, why not all of them?