FR poll: The right to keep and bear what kind of weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Me | 02/19/18 | Simon Green

[Jhadur]

1.

[bramps]

Sorry to be the cynic that I am but my first instinct was to check your sign up date. Sure enough, it’s recent.

I suspect that you are on this site to sow discontent among conservatives.

[precisionshootist]

Needs to be refined but without question the 2nd is no less than 3. There is no question that the people should posses machine guns. When government comes for you they will bring a machine gun and nothing less. Google images for Elian Gonzalez and you will see what I mean.

[Wilderness Conservative]

I cant really go with #1 but something like this should come with some restrictions and a thorough background check.

[PapaBear3625]

#1 Absolutely anything. However, the government is not obligated to sell you a B-52 or a tank that was developed using tax dollars.

Keep in mind that under your rule, a grad student with access to a university lab could make his own chemical or biological WMD, as well as C4. Then again, there's nothing really stopping them now, except legalities.

[READINABLUESTATE]

I would go with the discriminate/indiscriminate definitions.

An indiscriminate weapon is just too much for your average Bubba. (ie: grenades and other things that go BOOM.)

So #4

My 2 cents worth.

[M Kehoe]

#1.

5.56mm

[Retain Mike]

I remember one authority on the 2nd amendment said the standard should be guns in common usage.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I think 3 reasonably jibes with the thoughts of John Locke, the basis for the mindset of our Founding Fathers when they laid the framework for the Constitution. The sticky bit is -- while the first clause of the 2nd Amendment does NOT require militia service as a condition to keep and bear arms (and if I hear one more historically ignorant liberal say "the militia, aka the National Guard" I'm going to get an ulcer) the Founders were operating under a framework where is was implicitly assumed that most free citizens had the training to use their weapons.

Not that it matters. We deal with what is, which at the moment means keeping semiauto hunting rifles from being banned.

[Don W]

I am torn between #s 1 and 2.

[griffin]

#3

[daler]

"I am of the opinion that the 2nd directly permits arms and is silent on ordnance."

Me, too.

I'm confident weaponizing anthrax wasn't on the founders' radar.

Of course, neither was radar.

[alephnull]

Since the purpose of the 2nd is to keep the government in check I say #1. If the government can have it so can we.

Cost will be a limiting factor for most private citizens when it comes to the big stuff.

[WASCWatch]

Strike the not.

That was a huge mistake. Need to proof read.

[Reno89519]

When?

[thorvaldr]

I’m changing my answer to #3. I would really like there to be some assurance that anyone stockpiling nerve gas knows what the hell they are doing but if you can’t be trusted with a MANPAD you can’t be trusted standing behind me at the bus stop.

[Rurudyne]

All common Infantry Arms or Munitions: at a minimum. Given the history of light field pieces in this country at the beginning possibly light field pieces.

Even more important: the 10th Amendment is clear ... there is no federal power to restrict the possession of Arms anywhere within the jurisdiction of a State.

The delegated power to write rule governing the Militia would make laws REQUIRING OWNING and PROFICIENCY / TRAINING lawful though. At least for all those eligible to serve in the Militia.

[JBW1949]

LOL...I knew what you meant...No problem...

[griffin]

I’m changing my answer to #2.

[clee1]

2