Weapons of War? You Bet. - Granite Grok

Weapons of War? You Bet.

Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein, in introducing yet another gun-grab bill, declared that ‘assault weapons’ are ‘weapons of war.’ Of course, by this point, the pro-rights reflex is to shout back:  No they’re not!  And then to start listing all the other uses for what are more accurately called semi-automatic sporting rifles.

Related: Support Bill to Prohibit NH From Enforcing Any Presidential Executive Order Infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights

But let’s take her at her word, and see where it takes us.  We can start by asking a simple question:

Would we allow China to tell us what weapons our soldiers can have?

The answer, of course, is no.  Which raises a second question:

Why not?

The obvious answer is:  Because we might have to fight China someday.  And it makes absolutely no sense to let a government that you might have to fight someday have any say at all over what weapons you keep around for that eventuality.

But this is precisely the reason the Second Amendment keeps the individual ownership of arms out of the reach of our own government.  Because we might have to fight it someday.

And from that perspective, it’s precisely ‘weapons of war’ that are most protected by the Second Amendment.

In fact, in United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court because the justices weren’t sure whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to someone fighting a war — in which case its ownership clearly would be protected by the Second Amendment.

Along with their many and varied other uses, semi-automatic rifles of all kinds are weapons of war.  And if the current government would like to see that vividly demonstrated, it should try taking them away.

>