[GovernmentShrinker]

does this gun have any legitimate purpose for civilian use? I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.

Note the Supreme Court's holding in US v. Miller, which is consistent with the text and original intent of the Second Amendment. The Court held that the test for whether the right to own a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment is whether it has a legitimate MILITARY use, not "civilian" use. The people are SUPPOSED to be able to out-gun a tyrannical government!

[mamelukesabre]

Note that the government uses this definition both ways. THey ban weapons that don’t have a legitimate military use. They also ban weapons that don’t have a legitimate non-military use. They also would like to ban weapons that are TOO legitimate in use...ie they are very effective.

That leaves us with only moderately effective weapons that are EITHER...neither military nor civilian in nature...OR...both military and civilian in nature.

Folks, they’ve defined it in such a convoluted manner that if you ignore the constitution and just go by precedence, allowable weaponry is whatever the whimsical government chooses to allow at any given moment.

[Andonius_99]

Well said, GS!

[Myrddin]

The inclusion of the concept of "legitimate use" is specious. The Constitution and 2nd Amendment do not include or consider the issue of "legitimate use". To do so is judicial activism at its worst.