Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Professor Koppel's testimony yesterday
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/1-30-13KopelTestimony.pdfBasically, this is the closest I've ever seen to my views on guns being articulated in the political debate here, so I wanted to post it. (This is a Senate transcript on public record so not under copyright; if people feel this is nonetheless too long I'll edit.)
(Edited out the interruptions from Leahy, and with emphases added)
To continue the themes that the Captain Kelly so eloquently spoken about, gun rights and gun control don't have to be culture-war enemies. Properly conceived, they can work together and reinforce each other. It's important to recognize that the Second Amendment is not absolute any more than the First Amendment is. It certainly has an absolute core that can't be violated under any circumstances, but that doesn't prohibit all firearms controls.
...
And, likewise, gun controls don't violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don't violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens.
Captain Kelly talked about the matrix of failure. 20 years ago, I testified before this committee -- some of the senators are still here -- about one thing that turned out to be part of that matrix of failure. And that was the ban on so-called assault weapons. I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories. As part of the compromise that eventually led to that bill being mistakenly passed by Congress, the bill had a 10-year sunset in it and a requirement that the Department of Justice supervise a study of the effectiveness of that law. That study was -- the people to carry out that study were chosen by Attorney General Reno at the Department of Justice. They did several interim studies, and then a final study. And they concluded that the law had done nothing. It had not save lives. It had did not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes. It had been a failure. It had -- to some minor degree, switched the types of guns that were used in crimes, so you had a gun with one name instead of another name, but it didn't -- it didn't reduce crime overall.
And indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that so much political attention was distracted -
...
And, likewise, gun controls don't violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don't violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens.
Captain Kelly talked about the matrix of failure. 20 years ago, I testified before this committee -- some of the senators are still here -- about one thing that turned out to be part of that matrix of failure. And that was the ban on so-called assault weapons. I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories. As part of the compromise that eventually led to that bill being mistakenly passed by Congress, the bill had a 10-year sunset in it and a requirement that the Department of Justice supervise a study of the effectiveness of that law. That study was -- the people to carry out that study were chosen by Attorney General Reno at the Department of Justice. They did several interim studies, and then a final study. And they concluded that the law had done nothing. It had not save lives. It had did not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes. It had been a failure. It had -- to some minor degree, switched the types of guns that were used in crimes, so you had a gun with one name instead of another name, but it didn't -- it didn't reduce crime overall.
And indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that so much political attention was distracted -
Unfortunately CNN's coverage and transcript cut off here, and CSPAN doesn't do committee transcripts, so I'm going to pull the rest from his "official" linked testimony:
In contrast, the definition of “assault weapon” has never been stable. The phrase is merely an epithet. It has been applied to things which are not even firearms (namely, air guns). It has been applied to double-barreled shotguns, to single-shot guns (guns whose ammunition capacity is only a single round), and to many other sorts of ordinary handguns, shotguns, and rifles.
The first “assault weapon” ban in the United States, in California in 1989, was created by legislative staffers thumbing through a picture book of guns, and deciding which guns looked bad. The result was an incoherent law which, among other things, outlawed certain firearms that do not exist, since the staffers just copied the typographical errors from the book, or associated a model by one manufacturer with another manufacturer whose name appeared on the same page.
Over the last quarter century, the definition has always kept shifting. One recent version is Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s new bill. Another is the pair of bills defeated in the January 2013 lame duck session of the Illinois legislature which would have outlawed most handguns (and many long guns as well) by dubbing them “assault weapons.”
While the definitions of what to ban keep changing, a few things remain consistent: The definitions do not cover automatic firearms, such as assault rifles. The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire, or how powerful they are. Instead, the definitions are based on the name of a gun, or on whether a firearm has certain superficial accessories (such as a bayonet lug, or a grip in the “wrong” place)...
The first “assault weapon” ban in the United States, in California in 1989, was created by legislative staffers thumbing through a picture book of guns, and deciding which guns looked bad. The result was an incoherent law which, among other things, outlawed certain firearms that do not exist, since the staffers just copied the typographical errors from the book, or associated a model by one manufacturer with another manufacturer whose name appeared on the same page.
Over the last quarter century, the definition has always kept shifting. One recent version is Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s new bill. Another is the pair of bills defeated in the January 2013 lame duck session of the Illinois legislature which would have outlawed most handguns (and many long guns as well) by dubbing them “assault weapons.”
While the definitions of what to ban keep changing, a few things remain consistent: The definitions do not cover automatic firearms, such as assault rifles. The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire, or how powerful they are. Instead, the definitions are based on the name of a gun, or on whether a firearm has certain superficial accessories (such as a bayonet lug, or a grip in the “wrong” place)...
Then some technical abstrusia on automatic weapons.
Rather than banning guns on rate of fire, or firepower, the various legislative attempts to define an “assault weapon” have taken two approaches: banning guns by name, and banning guns by whether they have certain superficial features.
After a quarter century of legislative attempts to define “assault weapon,” the flagship bill for prohibitionists, by Senator Dianne Feinstein, still relies on banning 157 guns by name. This in itself demonstrates that “assault weapons” prohibitions are not about guns which are actually more dangerous than other guns].
After all, if a named gun really has physical characteristics which make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics, and ban guns (regardless of name) which have the supposedly dangerous characteristics.
Banning guns by name violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder. It is a form of legislative punishment, singling out certain politically disfavored companies for a prohibition on their products.
An alternative approach to defining “assault weapon” has been to prohibit guns which have one or more items from a list of external features. These features have nothing to do with a gun’s rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower. Below are various items from Senator Feinstein’s 1994 and/or 2013 bills.
After a quarter century of legislative attempts to define “assault weapon,” the flagship bill for prohibitionists, by Senator Dianne Feinstein, still relies on banning 157 guns by name. This in itself demonstrates that “assault weapons” prohibitions are not about guns which are actually more dangerous than other guns].
After all, if a named gun really has physical characteristics which make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics, and ban guns (regardless of name) which have the supposedly dangerous characteristics.
Banning guns by name violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder. It is a form of legislative punishment, singling out certain politically disfavored companies for a prohibition on their products.
An alternative approach to defining “assault weapon” has been to prohibit guns which have one or more items from a list of external features. These features have nothing to do with a gun’s rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower. Below are various items from Senator Feinstein’s 1994 and/or 2013 bills.
Here follows the discussions of those features like bayonet lugs and certain grip shapes, which have been hashed out ad nauseum on DU.
Sen. Feinstein attempts to reassure gun owners by also including an appendix of guns which she is not banning. In 1994, she exempted 670 “recreational” firearms. In 2013, the exempted guns list grows to over 2,200.
Notably, not a single handgun appears on either of Sen. Feinstein’s lists. The basis for a gun being exempted is because it is, supposedly, suitable for recreational uses. This ignores the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment.
The exemption list is meaningless. It is inflated by naming certain models repeatedly. For example, the Remington 870 pump action shotgun appears 16 different times, in its various configurations. Besides that, none of the exempted guns are covered by the bill’s ban on guns by name or by feature.
...
Notably, not a single handgun appears on either of Sen. Feinstein’s lists. The basis for a gun being exempted is because it is, supposedly, suitable for recreational uses. This ignores the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment.
The exemption list is meaningless. It is inflated by naming certain models repeatedly. For example, the Remington 870 pump action shotgun appears 16 different times, in its various configurations. Besides that, none of the exempted guns are covered by the bill’s ban on guns by name or by feature.
...
Some bits above my legal paygrade about grandfathering and uncompensated eminent domain
Connecticut banned so-called “assault weapons” in 1993, and the ban is still on the books. The Bushmaster rifle used by the Sandy Hook murderer was not an “assault weapon” under Connecticut law. Nor was it an “assault weapon” under the 1994-2004 Feinstein ban.
The new Feinstein ban would cover that particular model of Bushmaster. But it would allow Bushmaster (or any other company) to manufacture other semi-automatic rifles, using a different name, which fire just as fast, and which fire equally powerful bullets.
To reiterate, the Sandy Hook murderer’s rate of fire (150 shots in 20 minutes) could be duplicated by any firearm produced in the last century and a half.
Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein’s website is somewhat inaccurate in claiming that the 1994 ban was helpful. The Senator’s web page on “assault weapons” lists five sources that allegedly show the “effectiveness” of the 1994 ban. However, four of those sources pertain, not to changes in crime rates, but to changes in weapon and magazine use. Such trends do not show that the 1994 ban was effective. Instead, they show, among other things, that the ban took place in a period of declining crime rates. Crime was declining before the imposition of the ban, and it continued to decline after the ban was lifted. The shift in gun use in crime also shows that criminals can easily replace “assault” semi-automatic guns with other, functionally equivalent semi-automatic guns.
The four cited sources show that if you make it illegal to manufacture a gun with a certain name, then firearms companies will make guns with different names. Then, guns with the “bad” names will become a smaller fraction of the total U.S. gun supply. Some of the guns in the legal pool of guns are eventually acquired by criminals. (The principal means are thefts, and “straw purchases,” in which a confederate who does not have a criminal record purchases a firearm on behalf of a convicted criminal. Straw purchases are federal felonies.) So over time, criminals have fewer guns with the “bad” name, and more guns with other names. Changing the names of the guns that criminals use does not make anyone any safer.
The new Feinstein ban would cover that particular model of Bushmaster. But it would allow Bushmaster (or any other company) to manufacture other semi-automatic rifles, using a different name, which fire just as fast, and which fire equally powerful bullets.
To reiterate, the Sandy Hook murderer’s rate of fire (150 shots in 20 minutes) could be duplicated by any firearm produced in the last century and a half.
Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein’s website is somewhat inaccurate in claiming that the 1994 ban was helpful. The Senator’s web page on “assault weapons” lists five sources that allegedly show the “effectiveness” of the 1994 ban. However, four of those sources pertain, not to changes in crime rates, but to changes in weapon and magazine use. Such trends do not show that the 1994 ban was effective. Instead, they show, among other things, that the ban took place in a period of declining crime rates. Crime was declining before the imposition of the ban, and it continued to decline after the ban was lifted. The shift in gun use in crime also shows that criminals can easily replace “assault” semi-automatic guns with other, functionally equivalent semi-automatic guns.
The four cited sources show that if you make it illegal to manufacture a gun with a certain name, then firearms companies will make guns with different names. Then, guns with the “bad” names will become a smaller fraction of the total U.S. gun supply. Some of the guns in the legal pool of guns are eventually acquired by criminals. (The principal means are thefts, and “straw purchases,” in which a confederate who does not have a criminal record purchases a firearm on behalf of a convicted criminal. Straw purchases are federal felonies.) So over time, criminals have fewer guns with the “bad” name, and more guns with other names. Changing the names of the guns that criminals use does not make anyone any safer.
A lot about magazines, blah blah blah, armed guards and their possible but dubious effectiveness, and then this (last excerpt, I promise):
Moreover, without universal gun registration, mandated background checks on purely private sales (e.g., friends in a hunting club selling guns to each other) are impossible to enforce. Universal gun registration is impossible in practice, and would lead to massive resistance.
When Canada tried to impose universal gun registration, the result was a complete fiasco. The registration system cost a hundred times more than promised. Noncompliance (by Canadians, who are much more compliant with government than Americans) was at least fifty percent. And the registration system proved almost entirely useless in crime solving or crime prevention. In 2012, the Canadian government repealed the registration law, and ordered all the registration records destroyed.
Obviously, criminals who are selling guns to each (which is completely illegal, and already subject to severe mandatory sentences) are not going to comply with a background check mandate. It will be irrelevant to them.Ordinary law-abiding citizens who selling guns to each other might be happy to take the gun into a firearm store for a voluntary check, provided that the check is not subject to a special fee, that there is no registration, and that the check is convenient and expeditious. Changing statutes and regulations so that gun stores can carry out voluntary checks for private sellers is the most that can be expected, realistically. President Obama’s order that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives provide instructions to dealers on how to facilitate voluntary checks is a good idea. In light of this order, there is no need for Congress to enact additional legislation to impose a futile and unenforceable mandate.
When Canada tried to impose universal gun registration, the result was a complete fiasco. The registration system cost a hundred times more than promised. Noncompliance (by Canadians, who are much more compliant with government than Americans) was at least fifty percent. And the registration system proved almost entirely useless in crime solving or crime prevention. In 2012, the Canadian government repealed the registration law, and ordered all the registration records destroyed.
Obviously, criminals who are selling guns to each (which is completely illegal, and already subject to severe mandatory sentences) are not going to comply with a background check mandate. It will be irrelevant to them.Ordinary law-abiding citizens who selling guns to each other might be happy to take the gun into a firearm store for a voluntary check, provided that the check is not subject to a special fee, that there is no registration, and that the check is convenient and expeditious. Changing statutes and regulations so that gun stores can carry out voluntary checks for private sellers is the most that can be expected, realistically. President Obama’s order that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives provide instructions to dealers on how to facilitate voluntary checks is a good idea. In light of this order, there is no need for Congress to enact additional legislation to impose a futile and unenforceable mandate.
There's a lot more testimony (this was basically what he covered in his oral presentation) but I just wanted to post this because this is the first time I've heard someone who I pretty much agree with completely actually given a voice in Congress in this debate.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
It certainly has an absolute core that can't be violated under any circumstances, but that doesn't prohibit all firearms controls.
true.
And, likewise, gun controls don't violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don't violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens
this is where my problem starts- the part in bold IS AN OPINION OF HIS. all he's doing there is setting up his later BS about 'boo hoo, the previous AWB was a failure, and NOT mentioning that it failed BECAUSE of the NRA and their lawyers, of whom he is the leader...
I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories.
stock NRA bullshit, refuted by the cop who ACTUALLY GETS SHOT AT.
And they concluded that the law had done nothing. It had not save lives. It had did not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes.
And indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that so much political attention was distracted -
1st sentence- total BS, how about a statictic or fact to back up such a broad statement.
2nd sentence- and again, fault of NRA+lawyers
to me, this is hypocrisy.
The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire, or how powerful they are.
the whole 2nd section is more nra BS- 'AWB is bad bad bad blah blah"
if they are so upset about feinstein picking guns out of a catalog (how the fuck else is she supposed to know what is being sold?)
WHY DON'T THEY MAKE A LAW THEY LIKE????
oh, right, they DON'T WANT ANY LAWS AT ALL BECAUSE SELL MOR GUNZ!!!
really.
various legislative attempts to define an “assault weapon” have taken two approaches: banning guns by name, and banning guns by whether they have certain superficial features.
that is PREPOSTEROUS. more of the 'we don't want any laws at all'
HOW THE HELL can you describe something if you can't use the name or the appearance?
the weight? tap it with a tuning fork?
really.
This in itself demonstrates that “assault weapons” prohibitions are not about guns which are actually more dangerous than other guns].
AGAIN, total BS. obviously, an AR is more dangerous than a bolt action .22
if a named gun really has physical characteristics which make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics, and ban guns (regardless of name) which have the supposedly dangerous characteristics.
total lawyer speak. did he not, @ paragraphs earlier, say the characteristics were a no go?
so legislators name the things, and his answer would be 'i stated earlier those do not count'
BS.
fuck that, pistol grips and detachable stocks aren't dangerous? why, then, does the ACTUAL expert, the cop, disagree?
Banning guns by name violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder.
LAWYERSPEAK!!! had to look up attainder- he is just plain wrong there-
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.
no crime, no punishment, just a ban. the only punisnment is they make less $$$ off of murder.
follow his logic, and its a crime to not sell people RPGs. get it?
These features have nothing to do with a gun’s rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower.
more BS lawyerpuke. see how he just sneaks in '30 round mags have nothing to do with ammo capacity'
please!
next section-
This ignores the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment.
HELLER WAS ABOUT HANDGUNS. SAID NOTHING OF ASSAULT WEAPONS> NOT APPLICABLE HERE.
and the part about one shotgun named 16 times- of course it is- are they supposed to just name one and let peeps buy the other 15?
But it would allow Bushmaster (or any other company) to manufacture other semi-automatic rifles, using a different name, which fire just as fast, and which fire equally powerful bullets.
BUT NO 30 ROUNDS MAGS. ONLY 10 ROUND MAGS, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT.
the guy just ignores things that don't back up his BS.
doesn't the maker need a LICENSE from like, ATF i'd guess, to introduce new models?
i think someone would have the option to say 'that's the same gun you made before, that is banned, you can't sell that one either'
that would be sensible...
the Sandy Hook murderer’s rate of fire (150 shots in 20 minutes)
more cherry picking- actual rate of fire= 30 rounds in 5 seconds or so. 150 could be fired in 25 SECONDS, in reality.
then he moves back to the name thing- more smoke and mirrors- the real issue being 40-50% of guns traded on the open/black market. duh.
Universal gun registration is impossible in practice, and would lead to massive resistance.
MORE OF THE SAME CHERRY PICKING BS
how many millions of cars are registered? the above should read "the nra makes people paranoid about perfectly reasonable shit"
THEN he goes on with canada's gun laws not working. BUT THEY DO.
then he says "VOLUNTARY" checks. as if you can trust people with guns.
in conclusion- i almost feel sorry for the guy, having to defend the nra's indefensible crap...BUT
i'm sure he's being paid handsomely.
i wonder why, if he believes in that 'cause', he can't come up with better arguments- he doesn't seem dumb.
perhaps the arguments just AREN'T there, and the NRAs propanganda blast is designed to cover up that fact with smoke and mirrors.
or...OF COURSE IT IS!!!
i'd like to see him go mano-a-mano with biden or leahy in a debate.
he'd lose.
true.
And, likewise, gun controls don't violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don't violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens
this is where my problem starts- the part in bold IS AN OPINION OF HIS. all he's doing there is setting up his later BS about 'boo hoo, the previous AWB was a failure, and NOT mentioning that it failed BECAUSE of the NRA and their lawyers, of whom he is the leader...
I warned during that testimony then that it was based, not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories.
stock NRA bullshit, refuted by the cop who ACTUALLY GETS SHOT AT.
And they concluded that the law had done nothing. It had not save lives. It had did not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes.
And indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that so much political attention was distracted -
1st sentence- total BS, how about a statictic or fact to back up such a broad statement.
2nd sentence- and again, fault of NRA+lawyers
to me, this is hypocrisy.
The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire, or how powerful they are.
the whole 2nd section is more nra BS- 'AWB is bad bad bad blah blah"
if they are so upset about feinstein picking guns out of a catalog (how the fuck else is she supposed to know what is being sold?)
WHY DON'T THEY MAKE A LAW THEY LIKE????
oh, right, they DON'T WANT ANY LAWS AT ALL BECAUSE SELL MOR GUNZ!!!
really.
various legislative attempts to define an “assault weapon” have taken two approaches: banning guns by name, and banning guns by whether they have certain superficial features.
that is PREPOSTEROUS. more of the 'we don't want any laws at all'
HOW THE HELL can you describe something if you can't use the name or the appearance?
the weight? tap it with a tuning fork?
really.
This in itself demonstrates that “assault weapons” prohibitions are not about guns which are actually more dangerous than other guns].
AGAIN, total BS. obviously, an AR is more dangerous than a bolt action .22
if a named gun really has physical characteristics which make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics, and ban guns (regardless of name) which have the supposedly dangerous characteristics.
total lawyer speak. did he not, @ paragraphs earlier, say the characteristics were a no go?
so legislators name the things, and his answer would be 'i stated earlier those do not count'
BS.
fuck that, pistol grips and detachable stocks aren't dangerous? why, then, does the ACTUAL expert, the cop, disagree?
Banning guns by name violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder.
LAWYERSPEAK!!! had to look up attainder- he is just plain wrong there-
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.
no crime, no punishment, just a ban. the only punisnment is they make less $$$ off of murder.
follow his logic, and its a crime to not sell people RPGs. get it?
These features have nothing to do with a gun’s rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower.
more BS lawyerpuke. see how he just sneaks in '30 round mags have nothing to do with ammo capacity'
please!
next section-
This ignores the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment.
HELLER WAS ABOUT HANDGUNS. SAID NOTHING OF ASSAULT WEAPONS> NOT APPLICABLE HERE.
and the part about one shotgun named 16 times- of course it is- are they supposed to just name one and let peeps buy the other 15?
But it would allow Bushmaster (or any other company) to manufacture other semi-automatic rifles, using a different name, which fire just as fast, and which fire equally powerful bullets.
BUT NO 30 ROUNDS MAGS. ONLY 10 ROUND MAGS, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT.
the guy just ignores things that don't back up his BS.
doesn't the maker need a LICENSE from like, ATF i'd guess, to introduce new models?
i think someone would have the option to say 'that's the same gun you made before, that is banned, you can't sell that one either'
that would be sensible...
the Sandy Hook murderer’s rate of fire (150 shots in 20 minutes)
more cherry picking- actual rate of fire= 30 rounds in 5 seconds or so. 150 could be fired in 25 SECONDS, in reality.
then he moves back to the name thing- more smoke and mirrors- the real issue being 40-50% of guns traded on the open/black market. duh.
Universal gun registration is impossible in practice, and would lead to massive resistance.
MORE OF THE SAME CHERRY PICKING BS
how many millions of cars are registered? the above should read "the nra makes people paranoid about perfectly reasonable shit"
THEN he goes on with canada's gun laws not working. BUT THEY DO.
then he says "VOLUNTARY" checks. as if you can trust people with guns.
in conclusion- i almost feel sorry for the guy, having to defend the nra's indefensible crap...BUT
i'm sure he's being paid handsomely.
i wonder why, if he believes in that 'cause', he can't come up with better arguments- he doesn't seem dumb.
perhaps the arguments just AREN'T there, and the NRAs propanganda blast is designed to cover up that fact with smoke and mirrors.
or...OF COURSE IT IS!!!
i'd like to see him go mano-a-mano with biden or leahy in a debate.
he'd lose.