It doesn’t matter. It’s a canard. Even your right to use a firearm for self defense, is regulated. Whether it’s initially a privilige or a right, is immaterial.
If it didn't matter they wouldn't publish the reasoning. If Heller protects a firearm in common use for lawful purposes, and "assault weapons" are in common use for lawful purposes, ownership is protected. The regulations on using one is self defense are no different than those for handguns, shotguns or other types of rifles. I can use a .338 Lapua magnum in defense of my home as long as I do so lawfully.
The MA “assault” weapons ban was challenged and lost in court. Clearly the ban is legal. Not that I agree with the ban....let me repeat that given your history of making things up to fit your narrative....I don’t agree with the ban.
It's in place. It may be "legal". It's Constitutionality is still in question. Should SCOTUS take on a case and rule differently, poof.
Not really, wounded slows the enemy down a lot faster than killed. It ties up resources on the ground.
I do, served with this POS wannabe turned politician once he discovered he could make money betraying his sworn oath. Anything else bubblegum?
Dave, either you have a spine or not. This stupid burger thingy is OK in the schoolyard but does not wash well after you turn 12. Did you serve at all?
