ATW525
Member
It seems most posters are missing the point.
It doesn’t matter what the sheeple think, if the courts buy it.
A “militia rifle” is the one weapon that is certainly covered by the 2A, under the militia clause.
For that reason, I would expect the antis to fight tooth and nail to prevent EBRs being seen as militia rifles. But that would be difficult to do, without positively specifying what a militia rifle is. This would put them in a very awkward, defensive position – they would need to identify SOMETHING as an appropriate militia arm, in order to say that an AR is not.
The ensuing argument would propagate the idea that the 2A is still in effect, and that it definitely covers SOME weapons; both of which ideas, if commonly accepted, are beneficial to our side.
The position of the anti-gunners is that the National Guard is the militia. It wouldn't be difficult at all for them to positively specify that a "militia rifle" is one issued by Uncle Sam to the National Guard. They will then claim that civillian so-called "militia rifles" are implements of death marketed to neo-nazi wackos who like to blow up Federal Buildings.