> how and why do we decide which arms are and aren't allowed under the 2nd Amendment?
That always starts a fight, and it almost always ends up with someone mentioning nuclear weapons. However, here's the logic I woudl use:
1) The internal police (local, State, FBI) should have access to whatever class of weapons they want.
2) The citizens should have ready and uninfringed access to the exact same class of weapons... *at* *the* *least*.
So... if the cops got machine guns, the people should as well. If the cops got A-10 tank busters, the people should be able to as well (if they can afford 'em...).
If the cops don't like the idea of me having a bazooka or an MP-5... then *they* shouldn't have 'em either.
Another discriminator I'd find reasonable to discuss: the citizens should ahve any weapon they want... until you get to weapons of mass devastation. Things like bombs and grenades and flamethrowers... *perhaps* those should have a license requirement.
A flamethrower would be awesome.
I think that's a winning argument. The armament of the cop is intended to be used against criminals and rioters -- which is exactly what an armed civilian can reasonably be expected to need the ability to deal with also