I applaud the intentions behind this hearing and believe we are all pursuing the same goal of reducing gun violence.

That expiration date will come if H.R. 1 passes.

It gives almost total partisan government control over the freedom of political speech in a representative republic.

one word describes this thing: wrong. Just wrong.

Would this have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech of Americans assembled from sea to shining sea?

This is not a bill of the people, by the people, and for the people; it's a bill of trial lawyers, for trial lawyers, and by trial lawyers.

The problems of the bill H.R. 8 are numerous, and if I were here, many in this audience and many of the witnesses here, my question would be to the sponsors and co-sponsors why they would give you a bill that is written and guts itself…

the oaths that I took in my life were not to a company commander or a general or a sheriff or a chief or a marshal; they were to the Constitutionalist principles that my oath represented.

this bill resembles Russian Government policy.

We best honor victims of gun violence by looking at the evidence. Neither H.R. 8 nor any of the proposed gun control measures would have prevented a single mass shooting in the last 20 years.

If we let these tragedies teach us, we see that we need to focus on mental health and missed opportunities.

It has not resulted in more gun violence.

I think that would be a tremendous help, because most of the people who have committed these mass murders are people who really need some kind of help.

The best way for anyone who is in danger to be able to protect themselves is through some means of protecting themselves, having a weapon.

If we look at the Charleston loophole, would that not have prevented the perpetrator from purchasing that gun?

It is fundamental, and it is foundational.

It is something that the law could not take away.

Closing that loophole would have saved nine lives?