Thank you.
You made a very interesting statement. The government now had conversations about banning additional assault-style rifles. We all can show pictures of the list here. They're not.... I mean, the definition.... What is a military assault-style rifle? I know that's going to be coming up in some magic definition that's coming forward, but it's never been identified. What I find interesting is the fact that, as legislation writers, you are asked to find firearms that are currently non-restricted in this country and make them prohibited administratively by the stroke of a pen and not with evidence that suggests that they are a danger to the public, not with evidence to suggest that the Canadians who own them are now a danger to the public but only because of some ideological push.
You can choose to answer this or not, and you're wise enough, have been around long enough, to know whether you will or you won't. However, those of you who may or may not have a PAL or an RPAL, those of you who may or may not hunt, do you not find this to be in conflict with what actually goes on in real life in this country, or do you have to put that aside?