The 2nd amendment is ambiguous which I imagine was on purpose. All that our elected officials can do regardless of their political affiliation , is interpret it and base laws on that interpretation. Its then up to the supreme court to determine whether those laws are constitutional. Thats an oversimplification but I don't claim any expertise in constitutional law. I am not in favor of an assault weapons ban for the simple reason that it won't accomplish anything and it will simply cause them to go after something else but the reality is that the supreme court will not deem it unconstitutional. The last one wasn't found to be unconstitutional but it had no teeth. It was purely cosmetic. You could go to the gun show, buy a sporterized ak, go to the next table and buy an ak stock set, and then go to the next table and buy all of the 30 rd mags and 75 rd drum mags you wanted.
What’s ambiguous about this?
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."
Sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Does this mean I can own a nuclear weapon or at least a small dirty bomb? Doesn't say the government can't force you to purchase a very expensive license and maybe put an outrageously expensive tax on them so no one can afford them. It does not say the government can't force you to register them.
For the recod .............this idiot is a damnyankee. Carry on.
How dare you!!!! . I was born and raised in TN. You are from New Hampshire. How is that even a state? You should be annexed by Maine. At least they have more than 100 yds of coast line. [/quote] If that isn’t a burst of estrogen......
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
