Ignorance of the law is no excuse, they say.
These two things may seem contradictory, but they are not. They both work to strengthen government power.
I am becoming an accelerationist. I am starting to think people should get what they want. Good and hard.
More and more I'm hearing the term 'assault-style weapon', which is an even more silly term.
BUT, by saying 'assault-style weapon', they're now getting around the standard definition of 'assault weapon', that being select-fire.
I agree with him. It’s a stupid semantic argument.
The “militia” mentioned in the 2nd amendment was defined in several rulings by the SCOTUS as a body of citizens organized for military purposes. They then went on to say that when summoned to appear as members of the militia, they were expected to appear with weapons supplied by themselves and of the type in common military use at the time. (Presser vs Illinois, Miller)
Accordingly, the firearms that that citizen militia should have access to should have the most direct military utility of those available. For example, the AR-15 in 5.56 NATO configuration is the closest modern equivalent to the Brown Bess musket for an armed citizenry. It’s ammo is interchangeable with standard military ammunition, almost all of it’s parts; save those of the fire control group that enable selective fire options, are interchangeable with Mi6/M4 variants also.
Semi-auto fire from an individual non belt fed shoulder firearm is superior to full auto fire for most tactical situations anyway, save for gaining initial fire superiority, suppressive fire, the final stages of an assault, and when firing along final protective lines in a defensive situation.
We must not be afraid to DEMAND access to military grade firearms, of whatever type, for the individual militia soldier. The 2nd amendment ain’t about shooting bunny rabbits. It is about protecting the community from internal and external threats, and opposing tyranny. In short “NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state.”
If the 2nd amendment isn’t about firearms SPECIFICALLY designed for military use, then the constitutional rationale for it is severely weakened.
I only use defensive weaponry.
I don’t need JUST one. Why do I know I’ll need more.
OK you gun grabbers!
BAN THESE! I DARE YA!
What is a full auto rifle?
When they were out to ban handguns, they followed the Nelson “Pete” Shields playbook from 1976 Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Center).
For semi-auto rifles, something they said they would never ban, they follow the 1988 Josh Sugarmann playbook of confusion.
“ Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons —anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”-Josh Sugarmann
I have 8 or 9 Marlin 60’s, best little rifle made, but it is far from an assault rifle.
An assault rifle has the capability of automatic fire.
They want to ban all semi-autos.
Yes, we know the definition of “assault rifle”, and know that there are very few out there in civilian hands and that nearly none currently legally owned have been used in crimes. The issue is people applying the terms to other things in order to confuse and deceive the populace.
The state of Washington classified .22LR semiautomatic rifles as “assault weapons”. How ridiculous is THAT??
No, it is all about banning any and all guns that they can succeed in doing.