- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,490
- 32,453
- 2,300
Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?
Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.
Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.
So the second amendment doesn't protect the right to own automatic weapons? How do you know it protects the right to own semi-automatic weapons?
The automatic rifle is the standard issue personal weapon of the military. If defending yourself against 'tyranny' of the government is a legitimate purpose of the 2nd amendment,
then why wouldn't it protect your right to arm yourself in a manner comparable to the army of the tyrant?
Actually in our army the standard issue weapon is a 3-burst M-16 rifle. The US military decided that full rock and roll was a waste of ammuntion, and 3 burst is adequate for a rifleman. Each section has a SAW gunner for suppresive fire.
The funny thing is gun grabbers are attacking me for being the very thing they are asking for. A "reasonable" gun ownership supporter. My line falls between auto and semi auto.
Plus, if the shit really hit the fan I would assume the "rebels" would have access to machine shops, and could modify the semi auto's to rock and roll if they so felt the need. It would be illegal, but at that point legality would be moot.
Most sustained fire weapons are crew supported, and have never fallen under the traditonal interpretation of an "arm". Rifles on the other hand, of any type of chambering, have always been considered arms.