Fair enough. So are Stinger missiles OK? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Where do we draw the line?
We don't that is why the Founders did the 2A. Of course if you decide to own those there are responsibilities and consequences.
Deciding what is reasonable invites to quality of life issues with can determine if you should live at all. Oregon is trying again to make it legal to decide when patients can be starved to death.
“Fair enough. So are Stinger missiles OK? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Where do we draw the line?”
Is this a serious question? Do you want a serious answer?
I think the 2A covers all small arms that would be operated by a man on foot. The only regulations I’m willing to accept are on arms that are hazmat...i.e., they are dangerous to others by their mere presence and proper handling requires 1) affirmative, positive action on the part of the owner and 2) requires extensive technical knowledge not commonly held by those with a high school education or requires equipment and tools not commonly available in the average household.
WMD would be prohibited to individuals. Such devices are more than just arms. They are tools of foreign policy, diplomacy, and expressions of sovereign authority. Those powers are delegated to the federal government by the constitution.