It's Thursday, and a usual ally in the gun-control fight just tripped on their Richard, and since you HAVE and WILL hear this wrongful message elsewhere, I present it now.
In this article, JPFO fails by falling into a gun-controller's trap, even while trying to beat down that trap. BTW, Jews for Protection of Firearms Ownership is a FAR better advocate for the freedom to K&BA than the NRA. Let's look at their FUBAR, though.
Sorry JPFO, in YOUR dreams, it might be enough to say gun control of AR-15s fails because it doesn't accurately describe "assault rifles", and you are TECHNICALLY correct, but that doesn't get it in this fight, does it? It's a sound-bite fight, isn't it, JPFO?
Want to knock out the "assault rifle" canard with one punch, JPFO?
Simply point out that "bearing arms" was meant by the Founders as a general statement. In that day, "bearing arms" meant bringing the same weapons to the fight as the enemy did.
The "enemy" in the Founders' day wasn't street punks on dope, it was GOVERNMENT, which could and did buy all the latest MILITARY weapons, just as they do today. Smarter thinkers than you, JPFO, have suggested that if there was ANY limit on "arms" in "bearing arms", it would be that the arms mentioned were INFANTRY weapons.
Yes, Infantry Weapons of today include select-fire (full-auto capable) rifles, mortars, belt-fed full-auto machine guns and grenades, so the NFA-34 is un-Constitutional on it's face, as I'm sure was pointed out back when FDR rammed it through Congress, dancing in the blood of the victims of tommy-gun armed gangsters such as John Dillinger and Ma Barker, Pretty Boy Floyd and Al Capone.
Yes, blood-dancing for Gun Control isn't a new tactic, either.
On average, JPFO, you do a good job, but getting sucked into the Kamel-Toe's gun-hate belies that. Get smarter on this issue, unless you want to be the NRA, and God help you if you DO want that, Jehovah won't help you.