(Washington Times) – WASHINGTON, July 28, 2012 — There has been hotly renewed debate recently about gun control, and whether a gun ban would have saved lives in the Aurora tragedy. Considering the theater where the shooting occurred actually banned guns, another gun ban probably would have failed completely.
But there’s another angle to the gun control debate that hasn’t received nearly as much attention as it should have. Is there a constitutional right to own assault rifles? Do we have the right, under the constitution, to own fearsome AK-47s and AR-15s?
To answer the question, we need to just look at the text of the Amendment itself:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The answer is crystal clear: Yes, there is a constitutional right to own all types of rifle, including ones that scare liberals and those who only trust the government with guns.
~~~~~NNNNN~~~~~
Please go to the Article, and provide the author some traffic – anything to support someone who actually *gets it*!
Thanks
LT
~Those who abuse Liberty, do so at their own peril!
When the Bill of Rights was written ALL rifles were considered assault weapons.
This is true in a sense, but othersise not -- the progressive practice of corrupting the language with frivolous terms such as “assault weapon” hadn’t been employed yet -- everyone understood that a “deadly weapon” was deadly, plain and simple. The colonists would not have engaged in folly such as artificially contriving some distinction between a “hunting rifle” and a “battle rifle”… it was just assumed that everyone had a rifle, and that was good enough. It still should be…
LT