In response to:

Why Republicans Are Poised To Lose The Second Amendment Battle

BHO1-Deal w/it TBAGRZ! Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:33 AM
I see no reason common people need military-style assault rifles...
johnnytentpeg Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Hmmm.

Wonder if you would've thought the American Indians could've "needed" military-style assault rifles.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 12:16 PM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
serwin Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:04 AM
Assault Weapon is a bogus term invented by anti-gunners and politicians to scare people like you who don't know anything about guns. A pistol grip or adjustable stock has no effect on how lethal a gun is.
tkdblk Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:02 AM
In your hands, a sling shot could be considered a dangerous assault weapon, where in my hands an AR15 could be considered a defense weapon that would virtually never have any chances of being used.

But if I was attacked with deadly force I would.

Going to ask you if you get the difference, but.............. I don't expect an intelligent response.

Surprise me.
hagar2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RoMqB0VU4U&list=UUwgZKBN65iRbNVrUi5yRopw&index=7
RodT Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:41 AM
Actually, it's not your opinon that matters. Read our Constitution - "shall not infringe".
BHO1-Deal w/it TBAGRZ! Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:43 AM
Depends on how you think it should be interpreted.
MadTexan Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:56 AM
It should be interpreted as our founders intended. There is more than enough of their writings to make it perfectly clear.

But no, you want to RE-interpret it and employ wily use of language to support tyrannical behavior.
tkdblk Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:07 AM
You interpret it incorrectly.
MadTexan Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:35 AM
You need to review U.S. v Miller (1939), the Federalist Papers, and the debates on the Constitution for starters.

Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit at the front of the bus either.
BHO1-Deal w/it TBAGRZ! Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:39 AM
That's all well and good, but irrelevant as far as here-and-now goes.
MadTexan Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:57 AM
Yes, you're right, 'need' is irrelevant and your opinion of what 'need' there is has no bearing on the rest of a free people.

tkdblk Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:03 AM
"U.S. v Miller (1939), the Federalist Papers, and the debates on the Constitution"

These are never irrelevant except to a member of the political species.

You have to give progressives credit. They’re nothing if not thorough. When an opportunity to limit the Second Amendment presented itself in the Sandy Hook massacre, regardless how tasteless it was to exploit that opportunity, they went full bore toward their goal.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced sweeping so-called “assault weapons” ban legislation this week that would place unprecedented restrictions on individuals’ rights to own, use, sell and even pass along already owned firearms to family members. But given where things stand now in the polls and political atmosphere, that legislation will go nowhere.

But the Constitution and the...