Oh, I put a response under each one whether I gave it the prompted response or not.
Furthermore, is that seriously the definition they are running with for an assault weapon? Do they understand we have capacity limiting laws already, so therefore we don't have any assault weapons by that definition?
Finished off with:
"Keep in mind that it is people who are willing to act outside of the law who are the ones who will find a way to (illegally) possess an illegal weapon to carry out actions which and even further against the law. It is people who are the problem. Enough cities (such as Chicago) and countries (such as England) can attest to the fact that no matter what weapon is prohibited, individuals willing to act outside of the law will still find a weapon, without concern as to if it is legal or not, and commit crimes. At the same time, countries such as Switzerland or Luxembourg show that it is possible to allow ownership of assault weapons and even machine guns without seeing massive crimes committed with them. I, and many, many other legal Canadian gun owners, believe in and follow strictly our Canadian gun laws. The legal ownership and enjoyment of thousands should not be infringed on because of the actions of a few who are not hesitant to find illegal weapons to commit illegal acts."
|
Hybrid Mode
