How is banning assault weapons a unreasonable limit on the second amendment.
RPG are banned. As are tanks.
Why do you need an assault rifle? You don't.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
~snip~
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Pistol: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
No.
Rifle: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time?
Yes. Is dangerous and unusual?
Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time?
No. Is dangerous and unusual?
Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time?
No. Is dangerous and unusual?
Yes.
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time:
No. Is dangerous and unusual:
Yes.
Methamphetamine: In common use at the time:
No. Is dangerous and unusual:
Yes.
Meth-lab: In common use at the time:
No. Is dangerous and unusual:
Yes.
Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time:
No. Is dangerous and unusual:
Yes.
Tanks are
not weapons. Tanks are
vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one
can own a tank. That does
not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the
tank and the tank
only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.
