I just don’t understand how any member of Congress can make a case for being against the banning of assault weapons. Yes, yes, the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment, but if you take, “bear arms” to mean any manner of arms so assault weapons are easily included, then why not hand grenades, why not bombs?
Why not, really, why not! Perhaps it is because the National Rifle Association is not supporting grenades and bombs this year. Next year they might!
OK, OK, there has to be a limit, but if any member of Congress has limits that includes assault weapons then I believe he or she should explain how they arrived at their position.
I don’t care what state they are from, they should explain it to “all America.”
I’m sure they won’t because such a position cannot be supported.