said mucheign -- flinn the same thing, that these are commonly used by criminals, often against police, not by people in self-defense. so i think it is the nature of the weapon that is at issue here. the assault weapons, because so extraordinarily damaging because multiple -- because multiple wounds, often with police officers as their victims are simply appropriate to be the end with the very well-defined and explicit approach that this proposal takes, so i think these amendments, while they may be well-intentioned, and i agree with their purpose in providing means of self-defense to victims of these horrendous crimes can be done better by other types of weapons. my friend respond to and say why would we want to make another wise, law-abiding citizen into a criminal but they want to use these weapons to defend themselves and their families? i see that as the effect of this legislation. criminalsieve if the you allude to, and as a former attorney general you know this area as well as anybody, if the criminal element is going to be using weapons like this, why would you deny for defensi