i’m pretty sure any ‘machine gun’ would fall under the category of a ‘weapon’ which would be protected by the 2nd amendment.
what justification do they have for limiting my ability to own/use such a weapon? seems if they arrest me for owning (or just advertising) such a weapon, that would obviously be an infringement of my 2nd amendment rights.
how am i wrong here?
I agree with you.
As the article states; the founding generation owned cannon and armed war ships legally.
The Bill of Rights acknowledged pre-existing rights of men and put in writing limits on the new government to infringe on those rights.
The right of citizens to defend their life and property from those that would take them by force should be obviously. To protect your life and property by the most effective means available should be equally obvious
Miller v US said that ‘militia weapons’— yes, including machine guns— were protected.