Jack Fields: “I rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation, and I can speak with authority on this particular issue. I own…”

“I rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation, and I can speak with authority on this particular issue. I own a mini-14 Ruger with a collapsible stock. I even have a 30-shot clip. Do I own this weapon, this firearm, for home protection? The answer is ``no.'' Do I hunt with this weapon? The answer is ``no.'' But I do like to shoot this particular firearm. I feel I have a protected second amendment constitutional right. Now, to show you how poorly defined this particular piece of legislation is, the firearm I just described is banned under this legislation, and the mini-14 with a fixed stock is not banned. There is no functional difference between the two firearms. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in this Chamber do not want to get tough on criminals. They view criminals as victims of society. So, to look tough, they have to make multishot firearms the perceived problem. These are firearms that actually cause less than 1 percent of the homicides in this country. Firearms that are metal, they are wood, they are inanimate objects. Our focus should be on punishing and depriving those people who break the laws of America. The compelling question today is: Should we erode a constitutional right, my constitutional right along with my fellow Americans', because of an inanimate object? I say to my colleagues, do not provide cover for those people in this Chamber who view criminals as victims of society.”