[chrisrhoden]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Assault weapon is a strictly legal term which refers to a specific subset of the category we refer to as rifles. The word rifle usually brings to mind a class of weapons that were specifically not covered by the assault weapons ban.

A more apt analogy would be

Religious Conservative : Taliban :: Rifle : Assault Rifle

My point being that, in this case, it's not simply a matter of perspective. Now, if the debate were much more polarized, one could see something like

Terrorist : Freedom Fighter :: Murder Machine : 2nd Amendment Rights

[cabinguy]

I think it is a fair comparison. If by guns we are talking about those used to kill animals... / If by guns we are talking about those used to kill people...

The only real difference between an "assault rifle" and a "regular" rifle is the color/design. One is painted black and looks scary. The other is usually wood tone. They are equally dangerous. You can find high capacity clips/magazines for virtually any brand or style semi-automatic rifle (and handgun) made.

[sageikosa]

Even more basic, I don't think I'm going to be jumped by ninja, but that doesn't stop me from practicing martial arts. I see no reason why someone who likes to shoot shouldn't be allowed to. In fact, I'd rather they learn to shoot safely then not.

[jamieb]

"If by guns we are talking about those used to kill people..."

Though the second amendment is strictly about protecting this latter use.

[JasonFruit]

One of the points of having your militia "well-regulated" is that it can now and then refrain from killing people.

[jff]

Most adults are, by law, part of the unorganized (inactive) militia.

[JasonFruit]

Is that militia well-regulated? I understand that firearms are well- (maybe even over-) regulated, but I'm thinking about the militia itself. My understanding is not as thorough as I would like.

[jamieb]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some people argue that this means:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of persons who belong to such a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This raises two questions:

1) Why did they not write that?

2) Did every person who fought against the British, and who had a weapon of their own, belong to a militia when they purchased the weapon?

Aftern considering these questions, it is clear that the second interpretation is not what they meant at all. What they meant was:

A) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

B) A well regulated militia cannot happen unless US Citizens have the right to bear arms. That there be a large element of the population who can rise up and form a militia, "officered by men chosen from among themselves"[1] is necessary for (A) to occur. Therefore, whether or not such a militia exists, and whether nor not a given person is a member of such a militia, all persons have the right to bear arms because one day they may be needed.

So when people say "Well we don't have an organized militia so you don't get to have guns", they have it exactly backwards. Instead of banning guns, we should be organizing militia. Not government militia. Not state militia. But organizations of free citizens getting together to organize and practice. This is exactly the opposite of what the federal government has been doing. Where these organizations exist, it has been shutting them down by force.

By all means argue that we have no need of a militia, and that we should therefore strike the second amendment. However, do not pretent that the second amendment means that only army reservists or state police should have guns, or that "regulated" implies that the very enemy it protects against (the state) should do the regulating.

[1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[jff]

An assault weapon is a legal term concocted by lawmakers who wanted to ban scary-looking guns. An assault rifle is a rifle designed to shoot lower-power, lower-caliber ammunition for use in assaults, as compared to the fewer, larger shots from a typical bolt-action rifle (or, as we like to call them, "Fudd" rifles :)

[betterunix]

If I remember my history correctly, assault rifles replaced "battle rifles," which were similarly designed but fired much heavier and more powerful cartridges (and were necessarily larger and heavier). The way I learned it, armies discovered that typical infantry engagements were at distances of hundreds of yards, rather than the mile-long distances guns like the M1 Garand could fire at, and that the weight of the ammunition and recoil of the guns were making soldiers less effective.

[sp332]

Lately, "assault" weapons are (legally) characterized by the amount of ammo they can hold. For example this 30-round magazine is illegal no matter which gun you put it in, whereas the same gun with a different-sized magazine may well be legal. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-3...

[AngryParsley]

Magazine restrictions are a separate law in most states. California has an assault weapon ban which restricts features such a pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders. They have another law restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Old magazines are grandfathered in, so you can use them in legal rifles.

It looks like the law is similar in DC. Possession of a magazine with >10 round capacity is a crime. Other firearm laws are irrelevant to the case you linked to.

[sp332]

OK, interesting. I know my home state of NH also has an "assault weapons ban" that just bans certain magazines, although we probably have other laws too that one bugged me.