Men test their right to bear arms

[jhooten]

Originally Posted by W8RMH

I DO NOT however see any reason whatsoever for someone, other than military or law enforcement, to posses an assault rifle,

Then I submit that your understanding of the founders reasons for including the right to bear arms in the bill of rights is flawed. I suggest you take time to read those federalist papers pertaining to the issue to improve your understanding.

[mancow]

Refer to post #6.

An "assault rifle" is a machine gun and has been regulated since 1938. So you have nothing to worry about. Problem solved!

[kma371]

Originally Posted by mancow

Refer to post #6.

An "assault rifle" is a machine gun and has been regulated since 1938. So you have nothing to worry about. Problem solved!

don't know why I'm going to keep feeding the animals here but...

defined by who? Websters?

since we are talking about the laws here, we need the "legal" definition for what ever jurisdiction we are referencing.

[jrholm]

Prior to January 1 2012 it was legal in California to carry an unloaded firearm in the open. Activists took advantage of that by trying to "educate the public" by openly carrying unloaded firearms to make a point. The states reaction, making it illegal to openly carry firearms. Long guns were not covered, so what did the genius "educate the public" do, took to carrying rifles. 1/1/13, all firearms carried openly are illlegal, except for certain circumstances (hunting etc).

Really people, do us a favor. If you are really in favor of less gun restriction have some maturity and understand the difference between "can" and "should".

I CAN jump off a skyscrapper, but I really shouldn't.