Posted on 02/19/2018 9:26:27 AM PST by Simon Green
I'll keep things simple for the purposes of this poll. If it were up to you, what sorts of weapons would a law-abiding American be able to purchase with little or no paperwork?
1. Absolutely anything.
2. Anything short of WMDs (nuclear, chemical, biological).
3. Anything capable of being wielded by a single person (up to and including grenades, rocket launchers, MANPADs, etc), but none of the above.
4. Any firearm including full auto, SBRs, silenced weapons, but none of the above.
5. The current status quo at the federal level, but none of the above.
6. The current status quo, but ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines.
7. Even more restrictive (please explain).
#1 “Shall not be infringed” is very clear.
Anything from a .22 to a B52
#1.
With little to no paperwork....a shotgun (of any variety). The hunter or farmer group aren’t the type for mass shootings.
#1 Absolutely anything. However, the government is not obligated to sell you a B-52 or a tank that was developed using tax dollars.
It depends on which state you live in, on how many of your God Given Constitutional Rights are violated.
That is the flawed list, and doesn’t respect the Second Amendment. If I had to put a measure on it, I would say that anything that the police can have, the citizens can have. I think that would respect the idea of the militia, and keep the real hard-core military weapons under tighter control.
Any weapon that can be carried and effectively used by an individual soldier or law enforcement officer. Armored vehicles, and anti-armor countermeasures as well. Since they are the potential threat, our defensive equipment should be of equal quality.
I would say #4, because Im not sure if manpads would be classified as “arms”.
In school, teachers told us 12” rulers were weapons.
#4
I would add that only citizens and legal residents should not be allowed to possess any firearms.
I would that citizens should allowed to possess any weapon that law enforcement agencies are allowed to have.
Good point. I was under the impression “MANPADS” were what our CONgress wears under their fancy tax paid suits, to prevent noticeable “leakage”.
King Georege did not consider muskets in the hands of farmers to be a threat to his regime in the colonies. He wanted to get those privately held cannons! ... #4, Alex
Between #3 and #4
US v Miller said (correctly) that the 2nd amendment protects weapons that support the function of a militia. Anything usable by a militia to attack legit military targets should be protected. So definitely anything an 11B is issued.
“...citizens and legal residents should not be allowed...”
A little mistake there???
#4 is fine with me...
Here is an interview of Justice Scalia by Mike Wallace in 2012
WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.
Any weapon that can be carried, transported and operated by a single person as these are “arms”. Weapons that require more than one person to operate, or can not be carried by a single person are “ordnance”.
I am of the opinion that the 2nd directly permits arms and is silent on ordnance.
In the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, people were authorized all sorts of “arms”, from swords to their own cannon-armed warships (necessary if the concept of privateers and “letters of marque and reprisal” were to have any meaning). Even in civilian life, private merchant ships had cannon to repel pirates.
I’d go with #4, but with one additional provision: that ANY arm authorized for use in the US by “law enforcement” becomes legal for possession by citizens. Including any arm possessed by any security/bodyguard agency protecting any “VIP”. If they want to supply police with armored vehicles with .50 cal machineguns, fine, but the same equipment thereupon becomes legal for civilians.
#1.
Duh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.