I found an interesting line in the Constitution

[jmg257]

87. Both posts are very informative, but his suggestions are not likely practical. Besides,

His take on the effectiveness of bolt actions in leiu of semiautos, and the president's 'power' to remove semis from the market because they inhibit people from getting a bolt action(?) for militia duty, are highly suspect. Also, where in the constitution does it say that when congress is derelict in their duties, that the power to do so transfers to the president?

History proves the US did not give up anything, and in fact gained a superiority in firepower by going to the M1 Garand in 1936. A reliable semi for normal use was a desire of the military for decades. Faster reloads, higher capacity, highly reliable, same range and accuracy, better sights, easier maintainence, etc. etc.

Ask the US Marines on Guadalcanal what they preferred...their old '03s from WWI, or the new Garands the army brought with them. Very few would have stayed with the 1903. And none of them did as the semi proved its battle effectiveness.

The M14 adopted in the late 50s would also be argued as a yet another improvement in arms, as even higher capacity and simpler faster reloads was added. Garand himself started these mods during the war.

Anyway, gun porn history aside..there is no real logical way having a semi available for purchase could be justifed as interfering with people buying a 1903 in 7.62. The costs would be minimal, and any person could simply have both.