Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.
That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:
In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.
This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.
It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.
Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?
Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.
Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.
|
Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.
This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.
To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode