I get it that citizens can be armed. for self defense, to protect others and property, and to protect ones rights against an out of control government. Somebody already explained to me the definition of "assault weapons" so I have a clearer picture.
But I don't think someone saying some kinds of weapons should be restricted is a bad thing. I understand, though, that it's a slippery slope and if the gov starts restricting things, it wouldn't be long before squirt guns are illegal.
I don't think it's a reason to discount Trump. I think it's a conversation we need to have. Aren't members of Trump's family hunters? So, I doubt he's a gun-grabber.
He’s not a gun grabber. Even if he was the legislature is not going to try to pass any gun control anytime soon. The public does not want gun control which is why you see many states passing legislation to loosen their gun laws even further.
The Framers have addressed your question, at least implicitly. Article I, section 8, clause 11 authorizes congress to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". At the time of the founding, these were warrants authorizing private citizens to take action against enemy nations.
The very strong implication was that it was perfectly reasonable for individual citizens, or groups of individual citizens, to possess weapons at least comparable to, if not equivalent, or even superior to those of enemy nations.
Even though congress has never used this power, the thinking behind it is pretty clear to anyone who can read common english. The lawyers who will spend days and months arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin have convinced themselves that the 2A has a much lesser meaning today. But it does not take much thinking or study for a reasonable man to convince himself that the original meaning of "keep and bear arms" was quite broad.