ok then.
so why does a civilian need a military style weapon?
are you self defending yourself from 30 armed men on the regular or something?
the ar 15 is not a military weapon, it merely has that military look and feel. it lacks the defining characteristic of an assault rifle : Burst or Full Auto firing modes.
thats why it's called "Military
STYLE"
would you likewise ban wearing BDU's for any who are not in the service?
are navy peacoatrs suddenly LESS useful for those who work in cold damp weather than they were yesterday?
do combat boots now become ""assault boots"?
does everyone with a Jeep or Hummer suddenly become suspect for driving a "military style" car?
the AR 15 is LESS powerful, LESS useful, and LESS effective at killing people or critters than the 70 year old deer rifle left to me by my grandfather.
when dressed up as a traditional hunting rifle, the AR can become surprisingly non-threatening, what you are opposing is cosmetics not reality.
it is also useful to recognize that the militia act of 1794 (still in force) REQUIRES all free men between 16 and 60 to own and maintain a brown bess musket in .75 caliber, and keep a store of powder and shot suitable for that weapon.
US V miller made clear:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the
Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." ~
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
so "SCOTUS" as you are so fond of saying, asserted that the second ammendment establishes a MILITARY requirement that the MILITIA (all free men between 16 and 60) be armed with ars SUITABLE for military campaign, and even refers specifically to the sawed off shotgun's absence in the military arsenal as a reason sawed off shotguns are not protected under the second amendment.
the supreme court did not find that sawed off shotguns were suitable for milita duty, and thus they were not protected, however an M16 with full auto capability IS suitable for military service and thus, would therefore BE PROTECTED. sadly the congress has levied a massive tax on full auto weapons, and further prohibited their sale (but not their possession in a cowardly attempt to dodge the constitution) so an ar15 is the next best thing.
whoops, looks like i need to get me one of them guns now, for militia purposes.
