Sending More Troops to Iraq

[mkemse]

I would define an assult rifle as a rife such as a AK47, Uzi,like rifle these 2 specific model are dated as rapid fire multiload gun who when the trigger is pressed it continue to shoot rounds til it runs out (genenral 30 rounds or more) continuos firing, unlike a hunting rifle which requires reload after 1-2 rouds, I see no partical reason to own an uzi, AK47 or any rapid 30 + round gun for huntining the deer, rabbit ect are not going to fire back at you
for hunting unless you are hunting human prey, a standard 1-2 round rifle should do fine for a deer, rabbit, ect, and not a 30+ roundcllip
please ocrrectm e if thisdefinition is not correct
I have no issue with gun ownership neevr had never will, i do have an issue with guns that fire a 30+ round clip for home or leasure ownership, collector yes no, hunting no, why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

[Princi]

why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

In advance, forgive the long post.

I think this comes down to a misinterpretation of what the 2nd amendment (and indeed in a broader sense much of the constitution) was intended to do. Hunting is not the primary reason why this amendment was constituted. Those who insisted that the 2nd amendment be part of the bill of rights were principally concerned with the ability for citizens to protect themselves. The colonies were basically agrarian economies and did not require hunting to feed themselves (that hunting was part of these societies is incidental to this specific debate.) The most critical concern was the recent experience that the founding generation had with the British and there aggressive attempts to confiscate weapons. There was also the reality of western expansion and the new, perceived, "enemy" which was the native population. To add to this was the foreign threat to the new nation of the British (the former rulers who were aggressively looking for a way regain control), the Spanish (who were looking for a way to reassert the quickly fading dominance), and increasingly the French (who were act less and less like an ally.) Defense, individual liberty, and a deep distrust of government power (whether local or foreign) was the driving force behind the articulation and constitution of the right to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd amendment does not grant this right, it simply recognizes the rights that had naturally accrued (and deemed universal) during the period of "Salutary Neglect" (the period of non-intervention in the colonies by the English crown.) This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the rights enumerated by the constitution; these are not rights granted, but rights that pre-existed the American state and fully articulated by the constitution.

Regards,
Princi