Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
The 2nd says nothing about "rising up" against the government.This is a non starter for you. Let's just move on.
2A brings that up. Or the original intent. And you gunnutters keep bringing it up to justify the AR-15. And this is as relevent as you can get.
Funny, there are a few running about in the Army records. Not many but a few. I know of one Grunt that got one issued to him for guard duty. But that's irrelevent.
And not one of those (with the exception of the 1911) was specially designed strictly for war. I can do as much damage with an AR-15 as I can with an M-16 because both are the same damned weapon except for the lower carrier. We learned not to have our AR-15 Model 601(M-16) on full auto because you would break the 11 commandment of war. Thou shalt not run out of ammo first.
Oh, really, tell you what, turn me in to the mods. Hell, turn me into the FBI.
And there needs to be just a few that are pertinent to the point. And the AR-15 needs to be regulated.
And yes it is irrelevant because as I have already stated there is no prohibition against civilians owning weapons used by the military. If there were I couldn't own my shotgun or 2 of my handguns.
Specifically designed for war" more irrelevant claptrap. A semiautomatic rifle is not "specifically designed for war".
And any semiautomatic rifle chambered for a .223 will substitute for an AR. There is nothing in the cosmetics of the Ar that makes it functionally any different than any other rifle.