DCMP on 
Dana Porter on 
In 2005 the National Rifle Association (notice the word rifle not assault weapon) was slated to bring their national convention to the city of Columbus. However, Columbus had the temerity to stand up to the gun lobby.
The announcement came five days after Mayor Michael Coleman signed legislation outlawing the sale of certain kinds of military-style semiautomatic weapons and requiring people who purchased such guns before the law’s effective date, Aug. 12, to register them with the police.
The NRA canceled their convention in Columbus. Based on this recent video, nice job Columbus.
Of course the NRA brought up the second amendment. This from the NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre.
It’s simply bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment at election time…
That ignores what the second amendment actually says.
“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.”
Laws banning assault weapons are not infringing on a citizens right to bear arms, these laws are only trying to constitutionally regulate that right. The NRA’s position that assault rifles are covered under the second amendment is even more amazing when you realize the founders were talking about muskets and cannons.
Still, a Supreme Court full of ideological NRA supported Republican appointees were all too willing to ignore what The Constitution actually said.
But the NRA believes assault weapons fall under second amendment protection. Where does this madness end? How far will the NRA push their agenda of violent weapons? Are nuclear weapons also protected under the second amendment if they are delivered from the barrel of a “rifle?” Where does the NRA draw the line? Oh … wait a minute … there is no line!
I’m not sure what the relevance of the video is…that was supposedly railing against the nonexistent “gun show loophole”, not misleadingly named “assault weapons”.
If the Second Amendment doesn’t protect modern “arms”, then does the First Amendment not protect modern forms of communication? That’s a ridiculous argument on its face.
When the First Amendment was written, after all, the founders were talking about manually operated printing presses, quill pens, and as far as one’s voice could carry, not the Internet, Television, Radio etc etc etc…so I guess, under your theory, those methods of communication simply aren’t protected by the first amendment right?
That’s not even addressing the fact that the Second Amendment’s stated purpose was to provide for a civilian force (the militia), that was equal to a military force in armament and training.
Yes…it is the National RIFLE Association; and the firearms vilified by saddling them with a wholly misleading moniker are…wait for it…RIFLES.
Imagine that.
They are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles just like the semi-automatic hunting and ranch rifles that have been commonplace (what the Supreme Court would term as “In Common Use”) for about 100 years.
They just happen to have more modern cosmetic features (if you consider features that have been common since the ’50′s to be “modern”) that make them appear scary to the uninformed…like yourself for example.
In fact, the very fact that these rifles are built to approximate the look and feel of their military cousins (while eschewing the singular feature that makes a military rifle a military rifle: fully automatic firing modes) they are chambered in loadings typically used by the military.
Unfortunately for your argument, current military doctrine embraces the use of INTERMEDIATE powered loads in order to allow soldiers to carry more of the lighter ammunition, rather than less of more effective (and, therefore heavier) ammunition such as that commonly used in hunting rifles.
The US military uses the 5.56x45mm round which is virtually identical to the civilian .223 Remington cartridge…neither of which are even legal to use for hunting deer in most states because of it’s diminutive bullet size and relatively low power. It is considered inhumane to hunt with a loading that is not powerful enough to reliably and cleanly put down the prey.
The fact is that “assault weapons” are NOT military assault rifles, are NOT unreasonably powerful or dangerous, are NOT the “preferred weapons of criminals”, are NOT commonly used to kill Police Officers, and absolutely ARE protected by the second amendment.
So the problem they want to stop is, a citizen from selling his personal property to another citizen? Or to stop guns sales period? Or stop gun shows?
Let’s say they close this “loophole.” Does that mean a citizen will not be able to sell a lawfully owned gun when and to whom they want? Even if it is at their own house.
Also,the “under covered” people were dishonest, gave misleading or incorrect information. Just like criminals.
Interesting.