Are there (as we interpret the Constitution), and should there be, any limitations on the rights of private citizens (not state militia’s) to bear any kind of arms?
“Are there (as we interpret the Constitution), and should there be, any limitations on the rights of private citizens (not state militia’s) to bear any kind of arms?”
Personally, IMO the intent was to allow the common citizen to possess what were considered to be military “arms” (AKA weapons) common to the individual soldier. The British attempted to disarm the American Colonists at Lexington because they were building up a supply of muskets. At that time, muskets were smoothbore firearms that served no purpose but to be used in line of battle in the military. A “rifle” was useless for this purpose.
That being the case, my view is that any law abiding citizen should be able to possess current individual soldier type firearms. Today that would be an M16 type weapon, etc. (the “so-called” assault weapons). Personally, I have no problem with restrictions on weapons far beyond individual use (AKA a cannon, crew served machine gun, etc.). Those are reasonable restriction IMO. However, to restrict handguns, a common military weapon, is not in keeping with the original intent of the 2nd Ammendment.
That is my spin and opinion....there are some here that think they should be able to possess a thermonuclear device if they want.....that is a little too over the top..IMO.