Right, so it's a Liberal policy that says, “We want to get rid of firearms. We want to attack legal firearm owners, so this is what we're going to do arbitrarily.”
I feel sorry for you guys. I really do. You've been put in this tough spot. Seriously, you've been put in a very difficult spot to do the will of the masters, who suggest that we're doing all this fancy stuff for public safety, and they've done diddly-squat for public safety, diddly-squat. I'm embarrassed for them, embarrassed, and they themselves should be embarrassed.
Mr. Chiang, I have all due respect for you. This is not an amendment that's going to do anything for public safety—nothing, nothing whatsoever.
All the firearms listed here, as Ms. Dancho asked.... I would really like to know, as she asked.... I would ask that you guys do that. Are you able to provide this committee with a list of the firearms listed in the schedule that fit the definition under proposed paragraph 1(1.2), which says that it's a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun, because it applies to either one, and has the capacity or the ability to accept a magazine that has greater than five rounds in it, five cartridges. That would include many of them.
The fact is that we already know that, for most of this, if you have a magazine that exceeds the legal capacity, it's already a prohibited device in this country as it is, yet we're going to make something more illegal, because the criminals are going to be very concerned about making sure that they don't have a firearm capable of having a magazine that can take more than five. No.
Do you have a list? How many of those on this list...? Give me a number. We'll want the whole volume, the models and makes of all of them that fit proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g). Can you provide those for us?