4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I assume you mean "assault weapons" because actual "assault rifles" (capable of automatic or burst fire) are not genera

by hundt 7y ago

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I assume you mean "assault weapons" because actual "assault rifles" (capable of automatic or burst fire) are not generally legal to own in the U.S. But your argument would apply equally well to these banned assault rifles (they are clearly "arms"), so doesn't that mean your argument is wrong?

rayiner 7y ago
If fully automatic rifles are “clearly ‘arms’” (as you put it) then a blanket ban on them is unconstitutional.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Presumably, so would a ban on shoulder-launched nuclear weapons?