> His comment reflects gross, inexcusable ignorance (at best). <
People can be solidly pro-2A and still draw the line at different places. I’m curious, where do you draw the line? Is there any type of weapon that you would prohibit? Machine guns? Flamethrowers? Bazookas?
That might sound snarky, but it’s not meant to be. I’m genuinely curious.
As for me, I pretty much like the prohibited list the way it is now. My major beef is the lack of uniformity in 2A rights across the country. A person can open-carry in some states but not in others. That’s not right.
Shall not be infringed.
Anything should be permitted, it’s when the weapon is used on others unlawfully that -the person using it- should be regulated. Be it to court, or to an early grave in response.
No. The constitution doesn't allow it. The natural right of We the People doesn't allow it, either. If you don't like that, get an amendment passed.
Flamethrowers are not federally regulated at all; few states even bother. You can get them mail order or pick up one at some home improvement centers.
(Flamethrowers are actually specialized tools and not exactly useful as a general weapon.)
“People can be solidly pro-2A and still draw the line at different places. I’m curious, where do you draw the line? Is there any type of weapon that you would prohibit? Machine guns? Flamethrowers? Bazookas?
That might sound snarky, but it’s not meant to be. I’m genuinely curious.”
The intent of the founding fathers was for the people to have sufficient arms of the types used by soldiers to defend their state from foreign invasion or themselves from a government that has shredded the law and become a tyrant.
I am in favor of possession being unregulated for law abiding citizens for anything that 1) a soldier on foot would carry and use and 2) does not pose a danger by its unattended presence and does not require special knowledge or equipment to store safely.
Using you rationale, is it right that some people in some States can buy full auto weapons and suppressor a, but not in other States? Do you resolve this by making all States abide by the most restrictive rules?
No.
Machine guns?
No.
Flamethrowers?
No.
Bazookas?
No.
No on any of the above. The Constitution obviously envisioned people having access to large, even crew-served weapons. If not Letters of Marque wouldn't have been included in it. A cannon that would be standard armament aboard a privateer is a crew served weapon. The founders obviously envisioned people having access to them. A cannon firing canister was devastating to the infantry of the day.
You like It,,,
Trouble is that “They Are Not!”
They keep chipping at the 2A.