that's why I bought it that's why the people in the unit bought it and I would I would just suggest that this legislation has been tried before it really didn't appreciably change things and

assault weapons well and i understand that not every part of america is the state

is not a sensible allocation of resources and it's not a step that is consistent with protecting a

guns in that legislation and what we also saw is that a small mom and pop gun show who sells a

to take guns off the table no not talk about guns when it comes to gun violence is

not like I'm the only one in America with this there for me and stuff is the number one selling rifle I think up last year not

is why you could make that against federal law crossing state lines with certain types of weapons and I would object to that on

after the Heller case I really do believe that there's a very good argument the law now is unconstitutional because traditional lawful purposes such as self defense I

I believe it is will not appreciably change things and is giving a false sense of safety and

people who should not have guns do not have guns and that includes people with criminal background people

%HESITATION having said that I will vote no but it is not about question senator Feinstein's motives we

all the background nnj well and here's what I think I think background checks as its point you made eighty thousand people popped up is not being eligible

life is going to you know disintegrate in my community and I would would need it but there are circumstances where if he did have a I a

purchased a gun shows I today there is no quote so called gun show loophole every federally let licensed firearms dealer who sells a gun and if a gun show has

dangerous of course it is and unusual this the second is the third test can't be unusual are

the Democrat bill that is on the floor of the Senate and I would note that that bill instead what it would do is expand the