Is AR-15 military assault rifle?

Assault is an action.

Assault is not an inanimate object.

The left has hijacked language. Use your brain.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is purposefully by intent to protect 1) individual ownership of 2) contemporaneous [e.g. modern] infantry arms for 3) civil and personal defense [e.g. the security of a free state].

No other interpretation makes sense. A modern civilian militia armed with antiquated guns against other modern forces would get slaughtered thereby rendering the 2A toothless. Stated otherwise, if you're limited to muskets, you have no practical defense in modern times. Note also that no other Amendment is fixed in the 1700s technology limitations (internet and computers and satellite phones and TV are protected under the 1A, computers and phones and such are protected under the 4A, and so forth). Likewise, a collective ownership under centralized government control and distribution (which liberals argue) would be pointless at suppressing tyranny and/or would allow for easy destruction of centralized stocks of arms. The strength of the 2A is individual dispersed ownership of military arms to allow the people to come together for civil defense.

In the last 100 years, we've wrongly eroded the intended purpose.

Yes, the AR15, regardless of what you call it, is obviously protected by the 2A.

Let's look at how it works, in general. There's nothing revolutionary in the components.
* Semi-auto features have been around since at least late 1800s or by very early 1900s. Most weapons today are semi-auto, probably 80% or more.
* Detachable magazines have been around for at least 100 years.
* Pistol grip rifles have been around for maybe a century.

There's really nothing magical about the AR15, and the features are nothing new and extremely common.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Is AR-15 military assault rifle?