Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
but the argument falls apart if extended to the purposes of repelling a foreign invader,
|
If that happened (which IMO is impossible due to our possession of nuclear weapons) and our military and police forces are overwhelmed then there will be plenty of FA weapons to be handed out. However, I deem such TEOTWAWKI scenarios too unlikely to consider seriously.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yellowfin
Those are entirely suitable and appropriate for civilian use against groups of attackers,
|
Not when you are financially and criminally responsible for every bullet you fire if you hit an innocent bystander. No mob would likely advance against most regular civilian rifles when threatened with them. Your TV ain't worth dying for, they would run as they did in LA in '92 when faced by the armed Korean business owners who did not have or need FA weapons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yellowfin
Lastly, a core purpose of the 2nd Amendment is parity. You want military/LE/feds to have an edge over the civilian population?
|
That is the Insurrection theory which is anathema to Constitutional Law (see article 1 section 8 COTUS). This is kooky stuff.
The parity you speak of for the 2A was for the states to arm their miltias as a balance to any standing army. It was not to simply arm Joe Sixpack individually.
The edge I have over the military and LE is the rule of law, the courts and elected officials. My possession of FA will not matter while those are in place and if those things are not.
See my statement about TEOTWAWKI scenarios which rank alongside martian invasion.