Joined
·
2,627 Posts
I know that this isn't an "OMG!" moment or anything, but a point rarely made in the "Assault Weapons Ban" argument kinda hit me the other night.
Americans have traditionally been able to own a version of this countries main battle rifle since we've HAD issued main battle rifles. M-1903A3's, M-1's, M-1 Carbines, M-14's. We've been able to buy civilian legal AR-15's since 1963, when Colt first offered them.
There is nothing NEW about this. And of course, I suspect the tradition goes back further than the M1903...I'm just not knowledgeable enough to comment on that.
I know that "tradition" is not a legal argument, but you would think that it carry SOME weight in this debate.
Oh, I know. Harry Reid has said there are no provisions for a ban in the Bill being worked up. But he also said it could be offered as an amendment. I just don't think they're done yet.
Americans have traditionally been able to own a version of this countries main battle rifle since we've HAD issued main battle rifles. M-1903A3's, M-1's, M-1 Carbines, M-14's. We've been able to buy civilian legal AR-15's since 1963, when Colt first offered them.
There is nothing NEW about this. And of course, I suspect the tradition goes back further than the M1903...I'm just not knowledgeable enough to comment on that.
I know that "tradition" is not a legal argument, but you would think that it carry SOME weight in this debate.
Oh, I know. Harry Reid has said there are no provisions for a ban in the Bill being worked up. But he also said it could be offered as an amendment. I just don't think they're done yet.