[Mister Magoo]

So you argue that, if the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the Assault Weapons law as it stands today, it would most certainly find a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle to be an arm within the scope of the Second Amendment. Perhaps you live in a much more dangerous world than I. Given today's climate of “political correctness”, such a ruling, despite its apparent historical correctness and its logically elegant simplicity, would surely ignite a political firestorm.

[ez]

Given today's climate of “political correctness”, such a ruling, despite its apparent historical correctness and its logically elegant simplicity, would surely ignite a political firestorm.

No doubt. Emotionalism triumphs over pragmatism amongst the under-educated.

Still, if we are talking about original intent, and even based on the findings in Miller, it would be difficult to argue that an American did not have the right to keep and bear a modern military firearm.

FReegards...

[Sir_Ed]

"[the Supreme Court] would most certainly find a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle to be an arm within the scope of the Second Amendment. Perhaps you live in a much more dangerous world than I. Given today's climate of “political correctness”, such a ruling, despite its apparent historical correctness and its logically elegant simplicity, would surely ignite a political firestorm."

You can currently own a fully-automatic machine gun in most of the states. You just have to pass a stringent background check, get a local LEO to sign off, send in fingerprint cards to the FBI and wait six moths to be approved by the NFA branch of the ATF, and that fact hasn't resulted in any political firestorms...

Ed