[Vaquero]

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.” But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

well they should be the military versions....if we are going to go by the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme court in the 1930’s that only military weapons should be covered under the 2nd amendment. A bad ruling, that works in our favor under certain circumstances.

[DariusBane]

If you want to get into trouble at Free Republic, argue that given the natural law right to self defense, if you could afford it, it is acceptable for you to own a nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle group with air wing. That's how you find out how serious the posers are in their support for the constitution. Hint: it's not even about the 2nd Amendment. They just wanted to give special emphasis to this point. Under the Constitution the Feds cannot regulate firearms anyway. But they said in the 2nd that the States can't either and the Fed dam sure can't!