"The spirit and intent of the Second Amendment protects AR-15s and HK91s before Marlin .30-30s and bolt-cranked aught-sixes. The ability to go and shoot deer and such is just a fringe benefit of the ability to be a counterbalance to an armed government. Next time some Fudd mouths off about how 'you don't need an assault rifle to hunt', remind them of the fact that they're just hanging on the coat tails of the rest of us. If the Supremes ever uphold Miller in all its implications, it would mean that the government can ban deer guns, but not military weaponry."
Yeah, sure. And the next time some ARFCOM groupie mouths off about "your bolt-cranked Remington 700 being an adjunct to the Second Amendment", ask him why you cannot use said rifle to become a long-range hero of the upcoming revolution...
Fudds are one thing, but elitism stinks from the other end, too. Nor does it help deliver the RKBA message. I apologize for Marko's posting - I honestly think he knows better.
1 comment:
Your 700 in .308 is protected obviously, as it's a militia weapon; the .gov uses them, after all.
It's hard to argue the militia utility, (vis a vis the Miller decision) however, of a Ruger No.1V in .204, that's all.
Post a Comment