In response to:

Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 11:11 AM
Daniel, you are correct in everything you say, but unfortunately, like many gun owners, you are missing the main point here; it was the late Chuck Karwan who opened my eyes to the fact that AK-47s, M-16s, machine guns-weapons of war-are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is all about! It talks about a well-regulated militia (that word that the left has managed to demonize) and the right to keep and bear ARMS; it does not mention sporting equipment! It is not even primarily about self or home defense, but about we the people retaining the means to protect our freedom. As such it is not only saying that we are allowed to be armed, but that it plainly is our DUTY to be! It just stands to reason; if you partake of the benefits of a free...
Jay Wye Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:08 PM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:08 PM
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.

It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that John Lott has changed the national debate on gun control. His rigorous research and prolific pen have exposed the slip-shod analysis of anti-Constitution advocates.

I’ve cited his work on several occasions.