A Quote by Leland Yee

It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.
I support an assault weapons ban, and I'll tell you why. We already have one in California, so I don't support doing anything above what we do in California.
The fact that something is actually understandable and relatable doesn't mean that it's unsophisticated or banal. It just means that it's crystal-clear. And if you can't explain it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so brilliant that ordinary mortals can't fathom it. It might just mean that it makes no sense.
Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.
The ban on assault weapons has decreased gun violence in Baltimore not one iota. That's because few, if any, of the shootings were done with assault weapons.
Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
California has rules against assault weapons. It's just those rules are inherently so technical and have to do with cosmetic features, you can easily get around them with any sort of semi-automatic rifle.
You could say that the paparazzi and the tabloids are sort of the 'assault weapons' of the First Amendment. They're ugly, a lot of people don't like them, but they're protected by the First Amendment - just as 'assault weapons' are protected by the Second Amendment.
I've had people say to me, 'Well, I enjoy going to the firing range and using the assault weapons.' But the pleasure derived from that compared to the horrendous damage that it can do, we believe that the damage warrants banning assault weapons.
Selfish genes actually explain altruistic individuals, and to me that's crystal-clear.
Let me be crystal clear: There is no such thing as 'limited use' nuclear weapons, and for a Pentagon advisory board to promote their development is absolutely unacceptable.
Crystal-clear thinking is one of the things we look for - not a fancy slide pitch, but crystal-clear thinking.
You can have bans on assault weapons or whatever weapons you wish, and it's not going to protect from a violent person.
Great companies create an environment in which employees act like owners. They do this through clear communication, articulation of clear vision and priorities, coaching and openness to debate/discussion. I would argue that this type of environment helps people to be at their best - and helps the company to be at its best.
California has set up regional collection offices around the world, staffed by California employees, specifically for out of state California businesses to collect the money and bring it back to California.
The people that are proposing banning assault weapons, well, first of all they're already banned. Assault weapon is a fully automatic, those are already banned.
We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it's for a show or someone having it in a collection.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!