[JediJones]

I am not a student of the assault weapons ban legislation. But I am sympathetic to the idea that any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned. If you can show me that a weapon fits that criteria or not that is essentially my basis.

[Bogey78O]

Assault weapons make up less than 5% of criminal use of firearms. I'm thinking it's 2-3% but am unsure.

[Wissa]

I am sympathetic to the idea that any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned.

Could you please define "standard gun"?

[Auntie Dem]

any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned. If you can show me that a weapon fits that criteria or not that is essentially my basis.

It doesn't take too much imagination to visualize a group of 4 or 5 thugs terrorizing a neighborhood, and your house is next. You step out on the porch with a 38 special or an AR-15. Which gun do you think will scatter the thugs better?

I bought my Bushmaster for 2 reasons--1, the Clintons said I shouldn't have one (that was enough reason alone) and 2, it inspires a great fear factor in the criminal mind.

BTW, since you believe in a Living Constitution, would you play me a game of high-stakes poker using "Living Rules"? (I get to play the liberal courts)

[Charles Martel]

I am not a student of the assault weapons ban legislation.

That's a common problem. Many people who know nothing about the actual law and/or the legislation proposed to replace and expand it are pontificating on the subject, including, sadly, "television personalities". When Rosie O'Donnell spouts off, that's bad enough - but when someone like O'Reilly does the same, it's twice as bad. At least Rosie isn't masquerading as a "journalist".

But I am sympathetic to the idea that any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned...

Look up the FBI crime reports which break down crimes by type of weapon used. You'll find that "assault weapons" are way down low in the single-digit percentile. By far, the criminal's choice is the inexpensive handgun. Obviously, "standard guns" cause more harm, so it should be clear that banning military-pattern semi-automatic firearms was never about reducing crime.