[DugwayDuke]

"Likewise, an M-60, or 50 cal should be available."

Possibly not since these are crew served, not individual, weapons. Almost all "machine guns" are crew served. But, not all fully automatic weapons are "machine guns".

If you're going to argue for an "individual right" then it could be argued that right protects individual, not crew served, weapons.

[tpaine]

If you're going to argue for an "individual right" then it could be argued that right protects individual, not crew served, weapons.

Sure, you could argue that point. -- But why do you want to?

-- There are, & always have been, many privately owned cannons, for instance. Why would you argue to prohibit their ownership?

[patton]

WRONG-O, mate. Individually carried a M-60 for years, as a paratrooper. Weighed 23.8 pounds, plus 7 lb./hundred rounds.

Carried all by my wittle self.

Me, an' my Machine-Gun...

[SevenDaysInMay]

SEALs carry M60s as one of their individual arms options - as a belt fed "BAR" fired from the shoulder, documented on a recent PBS show. Good show too.

I want an accurized M2HB with tripod, on my front porch.

When the 14th Amendment is recognized as also pertaining to the 2nd Article of our Bill of Rights, some 20,000 gun laws will be extinguished. Enemies of our Constitution fear this.

What is to keep future government attorneys from obtaining "temporary restraining orders" against any and all Freepers, NRA members, etc. to preserve "good social order", a public safety issue. Our RKBA would be taken as sure as Dr. Emerson's. Criminalization of Constitutionally protected rights is THE point.

[dcwusmc]

It can be said that crew-served weapons WERE, therefore are and should always be, part of the arsenal of the CITIZEN and the civilian militia, the privateers and other CIVILIAN vessels and so forth... With the exception of WMD (nukes, bio, chem), any weapon some individual or group thereof can afford should be available... with the SOLE proscription that it be safely stored and responsibly used...