First, Mr. Smart Guy, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t ‘give’ us anything more than a guarantee. The right pre-exists the Constitution. Thus saith SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller. The enumeration of same, however, elevates the right into the “strict scrutiny” category, meaning that any infringement that claims “compelling government interest” had better be really, REALLY convincing.

Second, Mr. Smart Guy, Heller cited U.S. v. Miller in defining the types of arms the keeping and bearing of which is protected, to wit, “in common use by the people” and that “bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia”.

Third, Mr. Smart Guy, there are two militias – one organized, i.e. the National Guard, and one unorganized, i.e. the entire adult population. The National Guard amounts to a government army – NOT the militia targeted for protection by the 2nd Amendment. It exists to protect our right to defend against a standing government army. Thus saith the Founders and Framers.

And last, Mr. Smart Guy, by citing the Miller two-pronged test of what constitutes “protected” arms, SCOTUS cemented into precedent, exactly, military-pattern small arms.

In sum, Congress can indeed pass a ban on “assault weapons” if it wishes – Congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time, knowing that they will be enforced until they are struck down. By their lights, half a loaf, after all, is better than no loaf. But an AWB, post-Heller, simply will not stand judicial scrutiny.

So, NYA!

Now, go pound sand, and leave our rights alone.

You most certainly live up to your name. Even with the liberal take on several Supreme Court rulings (Miller vs. US comes to mind), the fact becomes clear: The 2nd Amendment protects only those firearms that may be reasonably considered to be used by a Militia (Military). Coupled with the fact that, by the US Code of laws, all males between the ages of 17 and 45 ARE members of the Militia (USC Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13 Subsection 311), that means that even the Firearms Control Act is unconstitutional. The reason for the 2nd is to prevent a Tyranny, not to protect rights to hunt…

And I submit: The Act that will reduce America To It’s Second Civil War Act of 2009.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It exists to provide Constitutional protection to my ability to defend myself from the excesses of my own government.

You dumb f*ck.

NGA

Yep, I reckon that’d qualify as a ‘chariot of fire’.

Pretty sure he had one of these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/AC-130_firing_night.gif

Jake

I want what Eli’jah had.

The “Start with these and work on the rest when everyone goes back to sleep” act? (ala troll)

The “Leave the coyotes alone” act?

The “Too bad you can’t play with your new toy” act (ala bully bill)

The “Satisfy fanatical, tedious troll” act?

Arguably, there are no semi-automatic weapons that do not have their roots in military weapons. The technology is of obvious benefit to the military, and the militaries of the world helped develop many of the advances in this field. Any ban of military heritage weapons could be very widely applied.

The AK-47 cartridge, the 7.62×39, is ballistically close to the 30-30, a standard deer rifle cartridge. Many people can and do hunt with these weapons.