Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blacklight
I'm sorry but assualt weapons SHOULD be banned from public use. I mean reall. There's NOT ONE reason that the average joe public needs to have a machine gun !
|
Okay then. If "Assault Weapons" are to be banned, how are you going to do so in a reasonable fashion?
If you say they should be restricted to Military and LE only, then what about the Citizen Militia? Everyone in the U.S. that is between the ages of 18 and 60 is subject to being drafted by the state to form a militia corps.
The militia in the days of the early post-colonial British Government had a small standing army with most communities and towns having their own militia of common citizens. Those militiamen were required to provide their own arms and clothing that were of comparable quality and caliber measurement (Ranging from .58 caliber to .70 caliber) and having at least 20 to 50 balls of ammunition and with enough powder to fire those projectiles.
Applying this template today (as it is framed in the 2nd amendment and was practiced in early pre/post-colonial days), this would mean that everyone who is subject to the militia draft must own: one m-16, one Beretta M92, have a uniform, at least 200 rounds of rifle ammunition, 50 rounds of pistol ammunition, have a rucksack, kevlar helmet, belt rig, and plate carrier vest in order to adequately report for duty at least once per year for training and marksmanship qualifications.
In effect, this would create the mirror image of the protocols the Swiss already have.
But wait, there's more:
There's such a thing as the organized (state) militia, and the un-organized (irregular) militia.
How then do you diffrentiate between the two without abrogating the 2nd amendment?