I understand what you're saying. All the idiots a few years going for their right to open carry were carrying ar15's into family resturaunts with the firearms at low ready position to pose for their pictures. I'm all for the right to open carry, but it needs to be. Simple duty size handgun firmly placed on your hip just like a police officer.Of course it is an assault weapon. Typicaly airborne assault troops all over the world choose their assault rifles to best serve the task at hand.
We simply play right into the hands of the anti gun ones to make up some PC excuses and cute semantics when we all know that any AR / AK / Galil / FN FAL type with folding or adjustable stock originally came into being as assault rifles for assault troops, opposite to standard infantry weapons - be we use out infantry soldiers also in an assault on the enemy, do we not? What is the problem to defend your home or community with your assault rifle?
What we should rather do with our energy is to educate and mentor owners of assault rifles to not brandish ANY weapon in a display of a aggressive challenge, but have them and train with them and use them for the reasons why it was aquired, and do so in a civil, mature and professional manner as befitting concerned and resolute citizens.
It is not the assault rifle that is behind the ant-assault rifle actions but in many instances the style and conduct by owners of assault rifles.
I think your right in the context of homeland defense, after the Revolutionary War of course, but I believe men and women raised in the art of gun handling are more trainable, confident and therefor ready to serve their country in the time of war. This is how I view the wording of the second amendment as referring to a militia.In fact - when taken the whole nine yards that interpretation (and I am not saying it is incorrect) means that ALL military arms on the Pentagon's inventory should be available to the citizenry should they wish to organise themselves into a militia.
THAT failure to organise themselves into that allowed militia units is one of the reasons why the other allowance of the Second Amendment is being ignored by states, cities, sherrifs, etc. The collective US citizen therefore has never been a force and never will be as it is too late now to become that force. The precedent does not exist.
The Right of States to raise militias comes from the idea that the Framers were suspicious of a standing army. They feared a powerful army, funded by government, to be standing in the new nation when so much of how Liberty was to function had yet to be written. They wanted the People to be ready to defend their homeland because they estimated the People to be far less susceptible to corruption than would be a standing military.I think you're right in the context of homeland defense, after the Revolutionary War, of course. But I believe men and women raised in the art of gun-handling are more trainable, confident and therefore ready to serve their country in the time of war. This is how I view the wording of the Second Amendment as referring to a militia.
That's my opinion on the matter as well. Honestly if my rifles had the giggle switch, I would probably not use it a whole lot. Ammo is too expensive to practice with in semi auto a lot of the time. In fully automatic fire I'm sure it would be even more expensive. It would be nice to have the ability to switch my safety back one more click and have the ability though. Just incase one would ever need it.It has always been my interpretation on the 2nd Amendment that the citizen should own and be encouraged to familiarize and practice with the Military's current combat/battle rifle. Be it classified as an assault, semi or full auto; or what ever new technology comes down the pike.