[PieterCasparzen]

There are people calling for the banning of assault weapons who could not define an "assault weapon" if their life depended on it. Yet the ignorant expect others to take them seriously.

Given the mention of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment, there are at least two implied purposes of it: 1) citizens should have military weapons in their possession so that they could fight if called upon without having to be supplied with weaponry and 2) citizens should be practiced with using such military weaponry so that they would not have to be trained if called upon. The 2nd Amendment clearly makes every able-bodied citizen a soldier, and, in the event of large-scale losses of our military overseas, such citizens would be the last line of defense of America.

Turns out, so-called "assault" weapons are exactly what the 2nd Amendment is about, the last line of defense of the American homeland.

[firebrand]

That’s because there’s no such thing as an assault weapon. Is a dagger an assault knife? Is poison an assault chemical? This term was made up by the commies in their relentless assault on the language.

[DustyMoment]

Good points. Back when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created, the “militia” were all citizens who answered the call when the nation needed them. At that time, there wasn’t a formal fulltime Army or Navy.