#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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
1.
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.
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.
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.