Just a thought, all this talk about banning the "assault gun". What about the bullet proof vest? Didn't the guy in NY that killed how many people wear one? Didn't the guy in Pitt. wear one? Our good govenor tell us he did. Why not ban the vest also. What law abbden
citizen needs one, you don't see hunters ware them in the field. In fact all the points that are argued against the "assault gun" can be used against the bullet proof vest.

In PA, they are illegal if they are used in an aid of a crime.

I HAVE to wear one to work, as do some other co workers, so banning them hurt people that need them for work, but I guess it wouldn't effect people like me anyways.

No, they're not. The right to privacy is not in the Constitution. Which is why it's alright to listen to our conversations.

I have joined, and served, sir. I was only permitted to use my weapon when permitted to shoot and could only shoot when ordered to. I could not pull my weapon from the arsenal when I wanted to. I was only permitted to aim/shoot my weapon for target practice. I was only issued a small number of rounds at a time. The weapons I use now are for recreational shooting, and for personal protection inside my home. The constitution, and the DC v. Heller decision permit me to own and use a weapon commonly used for home defense without prohibition.

In regard to hunting, semi-automatic weapons with higher capacity magazines than can be used in PA, are permitted for hunting in other states, such as in MD, where a semi-automatic M1 Garand, which holds 8 rounds of .30-06 ammunition, and is quickly reloaded, is perfectly legal.

The serving and retired Law Enforcement Officers I know believe that the law abiding public has a right to keep and bear arms and support them in their quest to shoot for recreation, concealed carry for self-defense or in defense their homes. I believe this means you do not support the majority of the police. They know they can't always be everywhere and they also know they are not obligated to protect the public. They often spend more time drawing chalk lines than drawing their service weapons. The next time you see an officer, ask him or her if they are against public ownership of weapons.

I'm not sure you've ever served in the military or as a police officer, because your reply pressures others to join if they want to shoot. If you had served, you would know you are more restricted in your weapon's use than if you were a private citizen. Certain groups will provide only the bits of information they feel is necessary to make their points. I humbly request that you do a little more research and expand your knowledge on subjects. If you ever want to go target shooting, ask a gun owning friend to take you out sometime. You would be surprised at the warm and welcoming individuals that target shoot.

Unfortunately, we have been guilted into allowing the mentally unstable to be a part of society. They can use not only guns, but cars, knives, swords, darts, and even their fists and feet to kill people. Institutionalizing prevented this. However, that is now considered inhumane. Now, they are able to get all of the above if they try hard enough.

Accidental car collisions kill 100 more people per day than accidental gun discharges. However, there's a strong focus toward reducing the ability for the citizen to own a firearm. By limiting all vehicles to a 1 speed transmission, and a 50hp engine, we could save the lives of 100 people per day. However, this is considered foolish. Why?

I don't understand how I'm much more likely to have a gun stolen by a burglar than have my home invaded. A criminal needs to invade a home in order to steal a gun. If I am home and I'm invaded, just the display of a gun will cause a criminal to flee (and not re-invade) or freeze. If the criminal brings a gun, they intend on killing me. I need the ability to defend myself against that.

We don't understand the reason why the killer in Pittsburgh did what he did. We only know what his friend said about him. We really need to learn and understand why this person decided to lash out this way. I pray that others will not act like he did. It only gives those that support the anti-gun lobby another reason to donate more money to influence the Congress that vowed to protect the Constitution to change it.