@briansol,
briansol;26786 wrote:while i support the right to bear arms... i really don't see it necessary for any non-military citizen to own an assault riffle.
i mean, you can't hunt with it (well, you can, if you like swiss cheese style deer), its impractical for home protection... its only real use is killing the taliban IMO
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b :
a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
I'd say that citizens owning assault type weapons is constitutional in the event that we need to come to arms to defend ourselves, and country.
The whole problem with "assault weapons" is that the lipservice does nothing to quill weapon ownership of CRIMINALS. it only serves to disarm lawabiding citizens. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all agreed, citizens should not be armed.