how many of you CA residents plan to register your "assault rifles"

[sarisataka]

31. "If"

has been long clear in the Constitution, writings of the framers of the Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, U.S. history and the Democratic platform. That sophomoric canard started with short legs and it is very tired so let's just put it to bed.

What arms is a valid question. WMDs are governed by international treaty which the Constitution acknowledges as valid so those are out. Explosive munitions are indiscriminate, posing and uncontrollable risk to non-combatants so those are restricted. Most belt fed automatic weapons are crew served, not individual weapons so we are in a grey area. For guidance we can look to the writings of the founders and laws of that time. They required, if a person was summoned for militia duty, they provide themselves a musket or rifle, ball and powder, i.e. the standard infantry weapons with some technological leeway. The modern equivalent would be a semi-automatic rifle. We can quibble that the M-16/M-4 has burst ability and is automatic, but in two wars I only ever set my weapon to burst once. I did not even fire it on burst so it seems that is not an especially critical ability.

Now if you wish to subsidize arms, feel free. There is precedent for that and you have reminded me I need to follow up on a program that provided shotguns to qualified residents in a high crime area. However historical precedent has required individuals to purchase their own arms.

Why would we give everyone a 249? Below you say that you are not claiming each person should have one but here you single that weapon out as a subsidy...