Posted on 02/19/2018 9:26:27 AM PST by Simon Green
I'll keep things simple for the purposes of this poll. If it were up to you, what sorts of weapons would a law-abiding American be able to purchase with little or no paperwork?
1. Absolutely anything.
2. Anything short of WMDs (nuclear, chemical, biological).
3. Anything capable of being wielded by a single person (up to and including grenades, rocket launchers, MANPADs, etc), but none of the above.
4. Any firearm including full auto, SBRs, silenced weapons, but none of the above.
5. The current status quo at the federal level, but none of the above.
6. The current status quo, but ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines.
7. Even more restrictive (please explain).
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.
Keep in mind that under your rule, a grad student with access to a university lab could make his own chemical or biological WMD, as well as C4. Then again, there's nothing really stopping them now, except legalities.
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.
#1.
5.56mm
I remember one authority on the 2nd amendment said the standard should be guns in common usage.
Not that it matters. We deal with what is, which at the moment means keeping semiauto hunting rifles from being banned.
I am torn between #s 1 and 2.
#3
Me, too.
I'm confident weaponizing anthrax wasn't on the founders' radar.
Of course, neither was radar.
Since the purpose of the 2nd is to keep the government in check I say #1. If the government can have it so can we.
Cost will be a limiting factor for most private citizens when it comes to the big stuff.
Strike the not.
That was a huge mistake. Need to proof read.
When?
I’m changing my answer to #3. I would really like there to be some assurance that anyone stockpiling nerve gas knows what the hell they are doing but if you can’t be trusted with a MANPAD you can’t be trusted standing behind me at the bus stop.
All common Infantry Arms or Munitions: at a minimum. Given the history of light field pieces in this country at the beginning possibly light field pieces.
Even more important: the 10th Amendment is clear ... there is no federal power to restrict the possession of Arms anywhere within the jurisdiction of a State.
The delegated power to write rule governing the Militia would make laws REQUIRING OWNING and PROFICIENCY / TRAINING lawful though. At least for all those eligible to serve in the Militia.
LOL...I knew what you meant...No problem...
I’m changing my answer to #2.
2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.