As an avid hunter and former member of law enforcement, I was already cognitive of the similarities between hunting r***es and assault r***es. But I am also aware of the differences (ie. larger magazine capacities, generally higher rates of fire, shorter range). But those are really just semantics. I know of no one who hunts with an AK47 or AR15, even though they can be used for hunting that is not their intended use.
Here's a question then, if its ok to on an assault r***e because its similar to a r***e is it safe to assume that I can own a tank, fighter plane, etc. Does the 2nd amendment protect my rights to own those things? It may seem like an absurd question, but where is the line drawn? And since, according to you all, the constitution isn't open to interpretation there is no line correct?