On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com>
   wrote:

Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution [2]http://daily
m.ai/2mmUuqG via [3]http://dailym.ai/android

   [4]Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

   I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me:
   'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to
   the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King
   Wasn't the point in the 2nd to ensure there was a standing militia in
   case it was needed in times of War (civil or otherwise). If anything,
   you'd think that line of thought would lead to banning weapons with
   limited utility at war?
   Times change, and all that, but seems odd.
   --
   Ben Tasker
   [5]https://www.bentasker.co.uk

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG
   3. http://dailym.ai/android
   4. https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android
   5. https://www.bentasker.co.uk/