Really pi$$es me off when I see pictures from other countries of civilians carrying around full auto AK’S and other full auto weapons in public and the average American cannot even buy one without a ton of taxes and regulation .
The only countries I have been in where the paradigm is as you say is those where there is anarchy and absolutely no civil order. (Iraq c. 2003-2005, Afghanistan, Somalia, extreme parts of Columbia SA, Central Africa etc) aka “warring regions”
Name one where what you state is not as I describe?
Israel? Every one you see in those pictures (usually of sexy girls with M16s or Galils) is in the IDF or similar force structure, the weapons are not privately owned.
Switzerland? State owned and controlled issue of assault rifles and ammo to active members of the reserve defense forces (aka National Guard)not for private use; ammo is controlled and inspected, as are the weapons themselves-with severe penalty for “plinking” or criminal use.
Any other examples?
While I am for strict and liberal (in the true sense) interpretation of the Constitution, I think the idea and suggestion that “other countries” have more firearms freedoms is ridiculous.
An honest look at the conditions in the colonies prior to the revolution strongly suggests that large “crew-served” weapons (canon etc) were public property while every of age man was required to be armed with a firelock (musket/rifle) and accouterments personally procured and maintained. Each militia “regulated” the use thereof (practice, drill, and tactics) on a normal weekly or monthly basis. This paradigm was exercised and enforced to varying degrees.
I am of the opinion (just as valuable/damnable as yours) is that US citizens should be encouraged maybe even required to own, possess and use any small arm to include rifles, pistols, select fire ARs (of any type) and light/medium machine guns (aka M240/M60) etc.
Explosive weapons and major caliber ordnance-should have multiple access and employment controls to reduce risk etc (flame on).
Molon Labe