The second amendment and military grade firearms

[45 shooter]

Whenever I read some liberal rant against "military-grade" guns, I always thinkof the venerable military firearm, the 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle, and the M-1 Garand, and the various other firearms that could be considered functionally similar enough to these military arms to be considered worthy of being banned as well. A broad enough legal interpretation of the words "military grade", without any additional maddenly nit-picking clarifying language, could lead to a huge problem for common hunting rifles across the country.

 

[Shadowrider]

I know it's preaching to the choir but....

When the Second Amendment was adopted, what kind of arms were available? That's right, the arms in existence at the time were no different for the standing army and the private citizen. No difference at all. Zero, zilch, nada. The founders had every intention for us to be armed just as the military is. Their intent, fast forwarded to today, was that we could have an F-22 fully armed. It's just that time has imparted a huge bias in one's ability to have the means to such things, but that doesn't change the intent of the founders one iota...

Edit to add: Anyone who tries to take the bacon off of my cheesburger had better well have a fully armed F-22.

 

[Seadog]

If any one has read the federalist papers, way down through it, it states " Every destructive device know to the soilder is the birth right of an American"... Not an exact quote but REAL close. The federalist papers were wrote buy the framers so that pepople would know what they ment when they wrote the Declaration of Independance, the Bill of Rights and all those wonderful Amendments. Many have forgot, many have never known, and worse many have tried to hide the truth.