2nd Amendment - does it need updating

I agree that rifles shouldn't be banned because they look dangerous. Most of the dangerous looking rifles are less damaging than the ones that don't look like "assault rifles".

I am not talking about how a weapon looks. I specifically said "military grade weapons".

You advocate making weapons designed to pierce armored vehicles, weapon systems designed specifically to be crew served weapons, offensive weapons designed deliver explosive rounds over a wide area ...i.e., the MK19 we were discussing...available to the general public as protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree.

What do I believe should be protected under the 2nd Amendment? Handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include semi-automatic rifles regardless of type.


What do I believe should not be protected? Military grade weapons systems like the MK19, automatic weapons, high explosive grenades, fragmentation grenades, claymore mines, armor piercing rounds, and RPGs.

This does NOT mean I believe people cannot own those weapons (or some of them). It just means I do not believe they should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

I understand. You didn't read any of my posts.

Here is a summary:

I'm not advocating taking anything away.

I specifically posted that revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles (to include semi-automatic "assault rifles") should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Then I argued that requiring extra taxes, regulations, and permits for a protected right is wrong as this is the government infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.

Then I argued that military grade weapons shouldn't be protected under the 2nd Amendment. People can buy and own them (some types) but these need to be regulated and not available to the general public.


You argued that military grade weapon systems are protected under the 2nd Amendment. At the same time you supported regulating (infringing upon) 2nd Amendment rights to own military grade weapon systems.

The difference between us is I do not believe the government has the right to infringe upon what is a right of the citizen. If it is a right then it is a right....not something to be earned or bought.

I don't have a carry permit. But I can carry my gun. I can carry it concealed or as an open carry. Why? Because it is a right. (I can't, however, in every state because most states infringe upon this right).

 

Why? What part of the US Constitution grants citizens the right to own nuclear weapons and grenade launchers?