Agree. Now I know that ‘assault rifle’ is an emotional term, yet I still hear it used even by some gun owners ?! I am trying to understand what sort of middle ground would work. I guess that is the million dollar question! Gun regulation/control proponents talk about making the process to purchase guns the same across all states – like licensing, background checks, yearly renewals, etc. It sounds logical, but I wonder what the down sides are – HIPPA laws regarding one’s mental health being marked in some national data base? State rights vs Fed rights? How much ‘infringement’ is OK? Are gun rights proponents OK with current infringements on gun ownership? Background checks, the ban of automatic weapons? Are we already in the middle ground and any further move leaves the middle now? What about insuring guns, like we do with cars and homes? Any gun used to illegally kill someone, the owner’s insurance company pays for funeral costs. Then insurance companies would have a vested interest in background checks and keeping those data bases current. Yet, the 2nd Amendment states ‘no infringement’ – we certainly do not follow that right now – and I am glad of it. I would not want fully automatic weapons in the hands of citizens. Yet, how has Congress justified this infringement but not other infringements?