Quote:
Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 thank you, I know some people who think that the Right to Bear Arms means they should be able to possess any weapon that the Military uses.
How do you feel about that?
|
While the government does restricted certain weapons and require "special" licensing (machine guns most notably), the bulk of firearms manufacturered today are available to the average citizen.
Should the average citizen be able to possess and use, say, a 105mm howitzer? good question, some people would say "hell yes" others would say "are you nuts?"
My feeling is that if a weapon has both civilian and military applications, then it should be made available to the citizenry at large (the 2nd amendment right is so important that leeway should be given). If however, the weapon has ONLY a military applications (anti-tank rockets, artillery, flame throwers, grenade launchers etc) AND has no value as a collector's item or historical value (which is why there is a class 3 FFL: curios and relics), then the average citizen really shouldn't have access to or the ability to possess such a weapon.
I am for as wide 2nd amendment rights as is practical and reasonable and that the government should err on the side of the rights of the individual, but also understand that there are situtations (and weapons) where this amendment just does not apply.