Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 8/21/22

We've got three Congressman in the classrooms today. 

Ed O'Keefe talked with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On the Mar-a-Lago search, Turner said releasing the affidavit would help explain how the FBI justified "raiding...and spending nine hours in the president's house," when they had other options they could have used. And, he said, "the American public want" the AG focused on things like "human and drug smuggling at the border... Chinese espionage, out-of- control crime in our cities."

He said his committee's concerned about "an allegation of classified documents," and that the DOJ should show them what they went to find, and what the "imminent national security threat" was. He's also concerned about the resources devoted to the search, "when we have real imminent national security threats, like Chinese espionage, the border, issues that -- things that are going on in Ukraine."

And when O'Keefe asked "what use could a former president have for classified or top-secret information once he's left office," Turner was unsure. 

Well, I don't know. I mean, you would have to ask him. But certainly, we all know that every former president has access to their documents. It's how they write their memoirs...

Have any used Top Secret/SCI documents for that, I wonder? Turner seems to doubt the classification of what was found. He said the FBI said "they were identified as marked classified," and, he said, Trump said he declassified them. He thinks the important thing is the "abuse of discretion" on the part of the FBI.

...we have evidence of the FBI abusing that discretion, and of misconduct on behalf of the FBI...There are real questions as, what is the FBI doing here? ...the rank-and-file FBI agents, everybody agrees we support them. We have great faith in them. But the leadership of the FBI, when they undertake a raid against the current president's political rival, you have to ask these questions.

We have "great faith" in the people, but we want to defund or even abolish the organization... And, when is the "real question" ever going to be," what is the former president doing?" Never, it would seem.

In the Meet the Press classroom, What's-his-name talked with Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), chair of the DCCC; he was asked if it was "fair to say now, there's no moral victory" for the Dems; either they keep the House, or they lose. Maloney agreed, but pointed to what he called "a summer of strength" and said the Ds are "going to buck history by making history." 

Look, we know that we need to get things done. That's the hard path that we've chosen. The other side has had a summer of stumbles, obstructing veterans' health care, ripping away 50 years of reproductive freedom, and now trying to defund the FBI and ignore a serious threat to our national security with Trump's latest scandal. We're going to address real problems. We think that's going to bring it home.

On the laughable question from What's-his-name, on whether the Ds "put party over country" by running ads talking about MAGA candidates, Maloney said "Absolutely not."

The moral imperative right now, Mr. Todd, is to keep the dangerous MAGA Republicans who voted to overturn our election out of power. There were 139 of them who voted against the results of the election back in January 2021...We believe that by running a commercial that called our opponent an extremist who was too conservative for Western Michigan, we teed up the choice in the fall.

Maloney was asked if "cynical moves like this" are why "everybody hates both political parties." He said his job "is to win elections for the Democrats and I take that seriously," again noting the importance of not letting McCarthy become speaker. There will always be "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions about tactics," he said. Indeed.

Finally, we've got Jake Tapper and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in the State of the Union classroom. Tapper wondered if Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal, is bothered that there was apparently classified information at Mar-a-Lago?

Yes. Well, look, you know me, Jake, and I'm not wanting to withhold criticism, and even make my own side mad. I want to get to the truth...but I will be honest with you here. It -- this -- it's hard to justify what the Department of Justice did here, in my opinion. 

It's not a question that it's bad to have classified material in a non-SCIF environment, right? So, that's a non-secret, compartmentalized infrastructure there. That's wrong. But there's ways to mitigate that. There's ways to resolve that issue. 

Besides, Trump's "been cooperating with them on these issues for a while now, for months." That's why the Rs, even the ones who don't think much of Trump, he said, are coalescing on the issue of the unjustness of the government taking these steps. 

Tapper said skepticism is fine, but there was signoff by a judge, and he wondered if law enforcement isn't innocent until proven guilty. 

Yes, again, people signing off on it doesn't mean it's -- it doesn't -- that it has precedent. It doesn't. This is a very unprecedented measure. And you know that when you're going after an ex-president who may run again, that this is -- this is automatically political. You can't -- you cannot separate the legal aspects of this from the political aspects of it. You can't. And it doesn't seem to me like they have acted responsibly as a result of that. And look, again, why not just ask him? Why not just ask him?

Remember, everything is unprecedented until someone does it. In this case, how many ex-presidents who may run again have allegedly taken TS/SCI and other classified documents with them after losing an election, have lied to the government about it, have paid liars to lie to the government about it, have a record of cavalier handling of national security, including in the very place that was searched, and of destroying documents? 

That Trump is unprecedented doesn't give him a pass, especially since the Rs say this is all about accountability - just not for the guy who had his house searched. Maybe this is one of those "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions" mentioned in the Maloney interview.

I do agree that Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC "can go join the defund law enforcement club if they want."

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v92)

Last week was a busy one here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of our seven posts, ICYMI. 

Things kicked off with the Part 1 of my series Yes, We Can Do Something, which I introduced at the end of the week before last. The series is about the things we can do, if we wanted to, about gun safety and gun control.  

Part 1 deals with the first half of the 2nd Amendment, and ways to create the well-regulated militia our founders mentioned. I don't propose banning guns, but I do recommend enhanced background checks, waiting periods, licensing requirements, new excise taxes, and training. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

I know it sounds silly, but if we don't teach them the dangers of their toys, they could end up like the people they're going to learn about. 

Next up? Your regular visit to the Sunday School classrooms, where my attention was on the politicians who represent Uvalde, including Valde County Commissioner Ronald Garza; he was with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. 

He talked about the stuff making the news - the timeline(s), and the confusion on why folks didn't go in. He talked about the families and about the school building itself, where his dad was a teacher. And, there was this part, too.

Garza knows the family of the shooter, and said he has "no indication" as to any motive. He described the family as one that "value(s) church, they value hard work, known them for many years- great grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts." He also said what happened shouldn't be a reflection on the family.

You know, we raise our children, and we try to raise them in the right way. But - but sometimes our children have different thoughts, have different attitudes, personalities, but we do the best we can.

His pain was palpable, as should be ours. 

Part 2 of the Yes, We Can Do Something series came next; this part deals with gun crimes and punishment. I included some changes not directly related to school shootings, because Republicans, like Texans Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, like to talk about strict gun laws in Chicago whenever there's a mass shooting in their state. 

In addition to requiring mandatory minimum penalties for using a gun in a crime, which must be served - in full - before the sentence for the overarching crime is service, I proposed the following: 

• Require mandatory prosecution for holding or hiding a gun in order to protect another person from being charged with a gun crime. 

• Require mandatory prosecution when guns are found improperly secured or transported, such as during TSA checks, law enforcement stops, etc.

• Categorize all crimes in which a gun was used as 'non-bailable' federal offenses, and carve gun legislation out of the filibuster.

That last part would be fun, right? Treating gun crimes with the same level of importance as they do SCOTUS justices? 

Moving on to your Sunday School Extra Credit, we caught up with Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He doesn't represent Uvalde in Congress, but he's a Texan, so he got front-and-center treatment in the State of the Union classroom.

They talked about things we can do, such as universal background checks, which he opposes, and closing the gun show loophole, which he denies exists, and opposes, and red flag laws, which he opposes. On a national law 

You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things.

More on Crenshaw in a minute.

In my Wondering on Wednesday musings, I focused on a post that popped up in my social media memories, one in which I compared my gardening to the gardening that Republicans have been doing, for years. 

Look at all the time they've spent - years, when you think about it - sowing seeds. Seeds of doubt. Seeds of hate. Seeds of fear. Seeds of anger. Seeds of rage. Seeds of control. Seeds of division. Seeds of conspiracy...

They're gardeners, carefully tending their crops, nurturing their harvest, and reaping the rewards.

 They're gardeners. Just like me.

Well, not just like me; I tend different crops, as I describe in the post. 

My wondering? Why has so little changed, with me or with them. I'm frustrated, still, and they're entrenched, still, 

And I wonder, is there a master gardener with the skills to guide us out of this mess, and help us achieve a more suitable design? Or, worse - are we stuck here?

Who is that gardener? It's easy to tell who it's not, that's for sure.

Remember Crenshaw and his lead-in to the red flag law conversation? I invited you to belly on up to the Sidebar for a deeper dive into that. Here's what he told Dana Bash.

You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

What's up with his comment about Internet trolls? What would make them think he favors red flag laws? If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be because they found the found the tweets he sent in 2019, after the mass shooting in Dayton, OH, which was just a day after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. Take a look.

"I supported them before I was against them," or something like that.  I also explored the TAPS Act in the post.

And finally, it was TGIF time - and after a lot of heavy lifting during the week, I chose to do an all 'good week' post. Here's one item that made the cut.

Keeping both oars in the water, there's a non-profit that's turning mining pollution into pigments that are used in paint. Rural Action, based in Ohio, works "to create environmental change in rural Appalachian communities." Contaminated water is collected, then a base and oxygen are added, creating pigments that are being used to make paint. You can see some of the artwork created with the paints here. This isn't 'new' news, but it's new to me and it's pretty cool.

I'll be back tomorrow with your Sunday School - we've got some pretty cool stuff of our own to do today. I'll have more for you in the Yes, We Can Do Something series this week, too. 

Sidebar: Sunday School 5/29/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School Extra Credit lesson, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was in the guest chair, chatting with Dana Bash in CNN's State of the Union classroom.

I want to focus on a specific part of his conversation with Bash; here's what he said when she first broached the subject of 'red flag' laws, which allow schools, family members, and others to contact law enforcement if they perceive someone to be a threat to themselves or others, and to have guns removed if a threat is confirmed.

You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

Crenshaw would vote against a national 'red flag' law, and on a similar law for his own state, the site of multiple mass shootings. 

What's up with his comment about Internet trolls? What would make them think he favors red flag laws? If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be because they found the found the tweets he sent in 2019, after the mass shooting in Dayton, OH, which was just a day after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. Take a look.

Darn those trolls for thinking he supports these laws, designed to stop potential bad guys from, you know, becoming actual bad guys who slaughter adults and children in schools, churches, and Walmart - in his own state, and others.

And what's that TAPS Act he talked about? According to the bill, it would task Homeland Security to put a task force together; the group would

"provide recommendations to the appropriate committees of Congress...on the development and implementation of a national strategy for preventing targeted violence through behavioral threat assessment and management... "

The bill defines "behavioral threat assessment and management,"  Too. (Note: I'll use BTAM, to make it easier.). BTAM is a

systematic and evidence-based process of (A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts: and (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary.

And who should be involved in developing that process? A group of experts with BTAM experience from non-governmental organizations, local and state BTAM units, local or state prosecutors, and educational institutions. 

In addition, experts from the following federal agencies would also participate: Secret Service, FBI, US Marshals Service, NCIS, Capitol Police, and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs. That's a strong group of experts - I mean, they've got the gang from NCIS and Criminal Minds in there, for Pete's sake. 

And, from the text of the bill, the 'targeted violence' that they want to prevent is defined as

any incident of predatory violence with respect to which an identifiable individual or group focuses an attack on particular target. 

It's in our national security interest to develop best practices and guidelines on how to deal with targeted violence. 

Sounds pretty good, right? And, it also sounds like these are the kinds of things folks who administer red flag laws would need to know, to help them do their jobs. But, not so fast. Here's the Heritage Foundation's take on things; and we know that what Heritage says is what the Rs very often go with.

When law enforcement officers and school officials are properly able to distinguish true threats from nonthreats, they are less likely to pursue inappropriate interventions that wrongly infringe on the rights of people who aren’t dangerous. 

And, Heritage also makes clear this is not creating a red flag law, and of course, they don't like those. 

The TAPS Act does not authorize or fund these types of laws at any level of government. The legislation would, however, ensure that—regardless of whatever laws already exist at a state or local level—law enforcement officers and educators can make better decisions about potential threats to public safety. 

That’s the kind of public safety bill that America actually needs in the wake of tragedies—not extreme gun control measures that largely punish law-abiding, non-dangerous citizens, but training that empowers us to identify and stop specific threats before they turn tragic.

It would seem, according to Crenshaw and the Heritage folks, that the preferred answer is to give law enforcement the training they need to do their job, but not the actual laws that allow them to do it.  

And he thinks the "Internet trolls" are nuts? 

Sunday School 5/29/22: Extra Credit

In your Sunday School lesson, I focused on a couple of local Texas officials, who spoke of their pain and anguish, their frustration and anger, and their hopes in the wake of the horrific shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde. 

For your Extra Credit, we'll spend time with another Texan - Rep. Dan Crenshaw - who talked with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom.

He was asked what "accountability looks like," considering the reports about law enforcement delays. He said he wasn't going to judge "the person who's walking through the breach and is in that moment in the arena," but he said it seems clear protocols weren't followed.

We have very clear training doctrine on this... I mean, the training clearly states, you might get shot, but the guy behind you might be able to get in and save innocent people.

He said someone's likely to get fired for these "very, very bad calls," adding that the Border Patrol coming in and doing the job is "pretty embarrassing for a lot of the local police officers.

Bash asked whether Crenshaw would vote yes on a national red flag law, noting that's one option in the bipartisan discussions in the Senate; fellow Texan Sen. John Cornyn is leading the Rs on that group.

Um, that's a 'no' on a national red flag law. 

No, I wouldn't. You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things

He's concerned about due process (even though these aren't criminal proceedings), and "ultimately how they even solve the problem, because these things have to be reported for them to actually matter." Of course, if you had a red flag law, things could be reported to the appropriate people, and reported to the background check system, too. That's kind of the purpose - to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

And, in this case, look, you have a troubled teenager who did some very strange things, shooting at people with BB guns, cutting himself, saying crazy things. Does this reach the level where you involuntarily -- involuntarily commit him or take his property? Because the thing is, is -- those things that this teenager was doing could be applied to quite a few teenagers.

Crenshaw said "maybe the solution they could agree on is improving our background check system," since "it doesn't seem clear that" a red flag law would have worked here. 

The problem is that the background check didn't capture the full story of this person. So, look, Republicans are the ones that proposed and passed the Fix NICS Act. Republicans have proposed the 21st century Fix NICS Act, which further improves the system...

OK - how about a universal background check? Um, that's also a 'no.'

So, people have to understand what universal background checks mean. That means that I can no longer sell a gun to my friend. If my neighbor, let's say her husband is gone for the week and she wants to borrow my gun, that would make us both felons. That's the problem with universal background checks. And the people who are least likely to adhere to universal background check are the criminals who intend harm. 

And the gun show loophole? Um, that's also a 'no.' 

When people say the gun show loophole, they're talking about private transfers, which gets back to the universal background check debate...There's nothing specific in law about a gun show that allows people to do more things than they would otherwise be able to do. 

This article gives an example of the loophole, describing how a guy wanders around a gun show wearing a "handwritten menu" advertising specific guns for sale, and that there's no background check.

Another often-suggested change? Raising the age. Bash noted that the Uvalde, Buffalo, Parkland, and Sandy Hook shooters were all 20 or younger, and she asked, should the age be 21? 

Well, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, should 21 be the age that you're an adult? As a society, we do have to decide when you're technically an adult... And, right now, we technically say 18.

But, he said, he's "not very impressed by our current swathe of 18-year-olds and their maturity level," so maybe we can talk about this... Until, we start to talk about it. Then, That's also a 'no.'

When we see a 22-year-old commit an atrocity, are we going to raise it again and are we going to raise it again? And, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves what our limiting principle is as far as that age limit, because, truthfully, the vast majority of these horrible shootings have been caused by an older person.

(The median age for people committing school shootings is 16; 2/3 of them are committed by people under 18. The age for other "horrible shootings" is in the 30s.)

Bash noted people are going to think he doesn't really want to do anything, since he said no to everything they've discussed; she asked, in a nutshell, what he'd say yes to. Here's that list: "actual security at a school." 

And why can't you do both - 'harden' schools, and some of the other stuff, she asked? Because of the 2nd Amendment? That's exactly the problem, he said. Gun control policies,

they do two things. One, they infringe on the rights of million and millions of gun owners. And, two, they probably wouldn't have the outcome that you're hoping for. So, if you're not going to get the benefit you want, but you're going to -- it's going to come at great cost, that generally means it's not a very good policy. Again, that's why I go back to hardening schools.

He doesn't see a problem that there are tens of millions more guns than people here; he thinks that fine. He also mentioned a CDC study showing "there's hundreds of thousands of cases a year where somebody used a gun to protect themselves or protect others." Actually, the study is inconclusive, except on the fact that more study is needed on the public health implications of on guns.

Bash asked him "Do you really think the founding fathers, when they wrote well-regulated militia, intended for enough guns, weapons of war that you are so...  highly trained in using, should be used to massacre children?"

Crenshaw talked about the "two different ideas in the 2nd Amendment" but he didn't say a thing about the founders. He also doesn't like the term 'weapons of war" because in the military, they use "much, much bigger" weapons than an AR-15.

At the end, Crenshaw wanted to add one more thing about rifles: "they actually make good self-defense weapons."

And, I'd add, they make very good offensive weapons, too. 

See you around campus.