I'd like to say a few words defending the public's right to own assault weapons that are not intended for hunting or target practice but for assault against other armed human beings.
I find no mention in the Constitution concerning hunting or sport as the reasons individuals were given the right to own and bear arms. Limiting public ownership to such weapons as can be used for only these narrow purposes is a fallacious premise that liberal control freaks have concocted. The Constitution states that a militia is the reason for weapons ownership by the public. What are militias for?Militias, I submit, are used for only one thing: defense. Or, in other words, for armed conflict against other armed individuals.
I submit that any weapons that control freaks call assault weapons are equally qualified as defense weapons. In a battle against other armed individuals, the more firepower in one weapon, the better. Sometimes it may be necessary to even attack an enemy to drive him away from his objective; which may be you, your family, your home, your community or country.
Does anyone suppose that the founding fathers intended that citizens be limited to pellet guns and pea shooters to defend themselves against professionally armed aggressors?
N. Roger Anderson