Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.
|
I bolded your error. The right is not limited to personal defense. It's
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.
Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. . . . .
|
Patently untrue. For example, in the case of a home invasion or a natural disaster, the need for a light, easily handled, semiautomatic ought to be obvious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
. . . . Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.
|
"Reasonably apt to occur" really isn't the standard the SCOTUS has set forth. Perhaps more importantly, what if something that is "unreasonable" occurs? I work very hard to try to make sure that my family and I live in an area where a home invasion is something less than "reasonably apt" to occur. I think that's an awfully weak reason for the antis to deny me the right to own a weapon that could resolve such a situation in my favor, all because they fear what someone else might do with it.
Quote:
|
A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.
It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.
|
Even though a citizen could need a light, low-recoil semiauto rifle with a moderate ammunition capacity, their right to own it is not based on needs.
Ever hear of the Bill of Needs?
Me, neither.