I’m not using it as an excuse. It’s just a realistic interpretation. When you think of military units deserting you are thinking they are going to bring rifles and APVs. The problem is they can’t bring the real weaponry that makes a difference. Without air support you will lose to those who have it. You can take a plane but you need somewhere to land it, you need supply lines for fuel, etc.

@the_average_gatsby Which comment was that? I love your username, BTW.

Well it can also be read as defense against enemies of the state. Either definition is about community defense (militia). It wasn’t until a few years ago that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment had anything at all to do with individual ownership of guns.

Because there is no way to not be ludicrously outgunned by the US military. Since that’s not realistic but the same tools being used to kill large numbers of people is, it’s the lesser of the evils to keep only weapons that are incapable of large scale damage legal.

You can smoke it too. I think injection is just the most potent.

Technically it’s about community defense and it has to be within reason. I think that’s the crux of the debate. The definition of reasonable.

Is that amount of ammunition without reloading a critical factor in the defense?

There is a legitimate question being touched on by this idiot’s sign: is there a legitimate reason to have high capacity weapons in regards to ammo? In what legal situation would they be useful?

Good eye!

Have to disagreee. No parent complains about this.

Hilarious that my comment is getting downvotes. :p