What is an “assault weapon”? It is simply a weapon that looks “scary” to liberals. If you put a pistol grip on a standard rifle or shotgun, idiots call it an “assault weapon”.
As for “a well regulated militia”… the reason for ALL of the first 10 amendments was to keep the people free from federal government enslavement… units of “national guard” and other military units under state control can be FEDERALIZED as was the Alabama National guard, and can be used against the citizens. That nullifies the part of “well regulated militia” as it is written, an only the private citizen is left.
So what kind of arms should Rosa Parks have carried? I don’t think they had AR15s back then, so maybe a double barreled shotgun? After all, she was outnumbered. Or maybe something more lady-like that she could have put in her purse?
How about when the Republicans refused to allow the President Obama to name a Supreme Court justice? Is an AR15 what I and my liberal friends should have brought to Washington? There are a lot of Republicans, so a big magazine would have helped.
So the private citizen with his trusty AR-15 is going to stand up to the 82nd Airborne? How do you imagine that going?
Look, it’s delusional fantasy to think that your 2nd amendment right to own an AR-15 (or whatever your gun fetish desires) is a check & balance against the might of the standing US military.
Even though the topic is continually fair game, this is a semi-zombie resurrected by what I would consider a rant if it were a standalone OP. The replies are sniping, not debate.
If someone would like to start a new thread (to add to the library) debating the nature of what constitutes arms, feel free.