Are Assault Rifles Strictly Weapons of War?

American Spectator ^ | 4.3.13 | LUCA GATTONI-CELLI

[neverdem]

The answers are far from simple, and lie in American constitutional and military history.

A key narrative in the push to ban assault weapons is that they are exceptionally powerful, firing rounds with a special capacity to pierce body armor and pulverize human bodies. The AR-15 infamously used in the Sandy Hook massacre fires the same 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition as its cousin the M16. The “NATO” designation seems to validate Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and company’s fear that these are military weapons which do not belong in the hands of civilians. The language of the Second Amendment and historical context in which it was conceived fundamentally undermine this logic:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights was adopted as a precaution against tyrannical government, with the Second Amendment democratizing military force. The Framers believed that citizens should have access to the military hardware they themselves would use to defend the homeland against tyranny, foreign or domestic, as members of militias. Whether this standard applies to artillery (reasonable persons may differ), it surely includes firearms. If anything, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution privileges the right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia service.

Progressives counter that the homeland has long been protected by a standing army. In their view, the right to keep and bear arms was confirmed strictly in the interest of military preparedness. No less than the Father of the Constitution expressly warned against a standing army. James Madison spent many months before the Constitutional Convention studying the history of governments. As he said to that body:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions...

[MasterGunner01]

If any of the NVA on Tiger Island were looking the right way, they could actually see the 16-inch projectile in flight [it looked about the size of a Volkswagen]. They knew for several milliseconds they were in deep do-do when the first shell detonated. After that, not so much.

[Dead Corpse]

Doesn’t matter if they are. Which, they aren’t.

My Right either way.

[Last Dakotan]

A M1 Garand can out fire a M14...

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. A M14 fires a .308Win cartridge fully automatically with a detachable magazine.

[mountainlion]

Most M14’s I saw were semi-autos. I have been told by a gun expert that a trained M1 Grand marksman can shoot more rounds than a M14 because of a slight edge of the M1 Garand in loading because the M14 has to lock in the magazine. The M1 Garand fires 30-06 which is a more powerful round also. The M14 is difficult to handle on full-auto so it is about equal to the M1.

[1010RD]

Up until urban anarchists ruined things and opened the door for big government Democrats to control weapons - everything was available to Americans.

Now our government doesn’t protect our liberty, but us. And to do that you need to suppress liberty. Liberty is dangerous.

[1010RD]

I just read this Heller quote from Scalia, “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”.

When did that “tradition” start, 1930?

This guy’s supposed to be a conservative and a scholar. How dumb do our masters think we are?