The Second Amendment's Purpose for Assault Weaponsby Will Ghormley on 12/27/12
There is a military doctrine of meeting the enemy with equal or superior firepower. To engage the enemy with a firearm that cannot match or exceed the weaponry of the enemy, is to increase the chances of mission failure. The goal is to meet threat with equal or superior force.
The same doctrine holds true in self-defense, only more so. On the battlefield, there are rules of war, in home-invasions; "might" is the only law. Criminals arm themselves with the best weapons they can obtain. I would not want to ask a home-invader if they would come back later after I have armed myself with a weapon that is equal to or superior to theirs. If the government succeeds in taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens, the criminal class will have all the “assault” weapons available. The goal of reducing the firepower of law-abiding citizens is to render them vulnerable. But this just addresses the threat from the civilian criminal class.
If the government actually attempts compulsory confiscation of legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens, the government has crossed the line from passively ignoring the Constitution as the Rule of Law, to become an aggressive, rouge, lawless, oppressive, regime. This newly exposed governmental criminal class is no longer a legitimate governing body operating under the founding framework of our nation. Our government has already become a law-unto-themselves, but to seize firearms would be to aggressively declaring war on the Constitution of the United States.
At that point, my oath as a soldier is to defend my Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. It is for that purpose the Second Amendment was codified among our unalienable rights, (which cannot be lawfully abridges by individuals or governments). When our government becomes physically hostile to the unalienable rights of the citizens, the militia is the last-line-of-defense. The Second Militia Act of 1792 federally mandated every male between the ages of 18 and 45 arm themselves with privately owned assault weapons at their own expense. This was not to hunt squirrels, but to hunt tyrants. The weapons specified in the 1792 Act were equal to and superior to the state-of-the-art assault weapons carried by all military personnel at the time. That would be the point of owning a weapon with a high volume of fire, to give yourself a fighting chance.
Our forefathers specifically called for the assault weapons of their day in the 1792 Act. The musket was able to fire and load three rounds per minute. A normal firing Company formation would be four platoons in line with thirty-three men each. Each platoon would have three ranks of eleven men. On the command of “Fire”, the first rank would unleash 44 rounds of .58 caliber, leg-amputating, gut-slinging, hot-lead in an instant. The first rank would kneel to reload while the second rank stepped forward and fired. They would kneel to reload and the third rank would advance and fire. In less than a minute, 396 rounds bigger around than a man’s thumb would tear through the enemy’s ranks, only to be repeated every minute until the ammunition was exhausted. At that point, the order to “fix bayonets” was given, and cold steel ripped through the bodies of the remaining enemy, (who presumably had also expended all of their ammunition). With the bayonet affixed to the end of the musket, it became an efficient dispenser of unlimited death. This was not a case of limiting the amount of damage done, but maximizing the destructive firepower of the assault weapons of their day.
No, our founders could not have imagined the volume of fire wielded by one Patriot today, but, if it had been available, they would have employed it! The founders FEDERALLY MANDATED private ownership of assault weapons in their day! If Patriots wish to retain their Liberties for the next generation, we must be of the same mind. The government’s push to disarm law-abiding citizens is aimed at making U.S. vulnerable, nothing more.