[[Another “myth” being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. ]]
Agreed, which is why they are trying to declare that any semi automatic rifle or pistol be declared a “weapon of war” or “assault weapon”.
Our Founding fathers wanted civilians to be as armed as the enemy in order to protect both themselves and the country, but our corrupt government stepped in and out of fear of we the people, banned certain weapons in order for the gov to maintain superior weaponry over civilians.
I guess my main point was that the sc should at the very least stop the left in their tracks, stop them from declaring semi-autos as “weapons of war”, and support our inalienable right to adequate self defense which means agreeing that citizens have a right to own guns to meet the enemy head on, ie automatic, select fire, and any other weapons that the enemy is bound to carry. We can’t as a nation repell an invasion/attack on the nation if we are outgunned at every turn.
I think it would be great if the sc stopped the relentless lying efforts of the left in their tracks,and then worked on restoring our right to own guns used by the military as well since we are going to be the ones cal.ed upon to protect this nation agaisnt all hostilities towards we the people by nations that hate us, and rogue governments- the left should be stopped by the sc from trying to further disarm us whole the rogue enemies within our nation become more well armed because they don’t follow the laws, and never will. The left in my opinion should be brought up on charges of pass8ng laws that make us more vulnerable and outlawing guns which are our inalienable right to own
I have a fairly long list of statements by our Founding fathers about guns on my profile page- it is really eye opening, revealing their common sense support of an armed society to protect us from all hostile enemies both foreign and domestic.
I think they are doing it, at least some of them.
When I first read the Bruen decision I was disappointed by the lack of the term "strict scrutiny". This has historically been the test used to protect the First Amendment and it's pretty strong protection. Unfortunately, the "strict scrutiny" test is an interest balancing test. It leans heavily toward rejecting infringements but it still allows government interest to play a part in the decision.
It took a second reading to realize that the Bruen decision test is far superior to "strict scrutiny". Bruen says to first decide whether the law under consideration involves the Second Amendment. Then it becomes the government's burden to show that our Founders tolerated a similar infringement at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. The landscape of arms laws was pretty barren in 1791.
As a result, we have seen many lower court decisions go our way. One that excited me was a decision that the requirement for serial numbers is an infringement. This requirement didn't exist until, I think, 1968. This decision would kill the entire FFL system.
We have Trump to thank for a Supreme Court that decided Bruen. Now it remains to be seen whether a majority of that same court will follow their own precedent. If they do, there will be many celebrations ahead.