[kingu]

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

So, using some of the reasoning in this ruling, one could argue that any protections for gays would be unusual, since they represent about 1 percent of the population...

Of course, the 2nd was never intended as a 'home defense' amendment; 'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear language. If these weapons were so unusual, they would not be mounted on the backs of police motorcycles, not to mention in patrol cars. 'Self defense', if that is the standard the government wants to take, includes defending oneself from the government. Hardly seems to be such a stretch that the people have the same firearms that the police think are necessary to carry out their jobs.

[bill1952]

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
– George Washington

[Foundahardheadedwoman]

Your comments make too much sense for the Feds to take seriously. You are right but the fed’s goal is to disarm the people, any excuse to do so will be correct in their minds.

The Feds say, “Common sense be damned.”