Hanging the “full auto” requirement on the definition of “weapon of war” is setting us up for failure.
Current issue combat shotguns are semi-auto. And no one will argue that either the Garand or the M1 carbine were civilian weapons.
The 2nd is not about “sporting rifles” , duck hunting or deer hunting. It is about guaranteeing freedom (see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for further clarification).
You need to read the article.
Some years ago the US government sold off their stockpile of surplus M-1 Garand rifles. After you were checked out and took a basic course of instruction and safety the government sold you one of the rifles. I don’t mean to split hairs, but isn’t this a tacit admission from the government that they themselves considered the M-1 suitable for civilian use? And if this is true wouldn’t it mean that former military weapons (M-1 carbine, Colt 1911 .45, etc.) now being sold for private use without protest from the government are, in the opinion of our leaders, equally suitable as civilian weapons?
That “weapons of war” phrase liberals are bouncing around sure starts getting blurry...