2nd Amendment means I have right to keep and bear...

[erik_26]

No limits.

[Suvorov]

The reality of the matter is, if you have the money to maintain (or regulate in 18th century speak) a platoon of M1 Abrams MBTs or an F-16 or two, you have enough money that you really don't need the 2nd Amendment.

Nobody in the .gov cares what kind of toys Gates, Buffet, and Soros might have.

[Spartanmk1]

If you can afford it, buy your self an F-15, and arm it with what you wish.

Granted, you're looking at quite the price tag. 30 million dollar jet, high fuel consumption rates, maintenance personnel, probably noise ordnance violations, arming the damn thing.


If you can afford it, then go for it.

[speedrrracer]

I think the 2nd Amendment was designed so the population could stand toe-to-toe against a military / government that had turned against the people.

That means whatever the military has, the people were intended to have.

However, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, nor did they foresee, weapons like hydrogen bombs.

So it's up to us to provide some limits. That's a debate we can have. But the 2nd, originally (imo) was written specifically to prevent ANY limits on private ownership.

Heck, more than that -- it was specifically written to prevent so much as INFRINGEMENT on ownership. I think the intention was that you can't even make me sign my name, or fill out a form, or pay a penny, before letting me own anything I can afford, let alone mess with ownership.

Infringement is such a specific word it's crazy. That word alone provides such clarity that the interpretations I see from some people really screams "Intellectual dishonesty".

[Veggie]

A lot of people don't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How are you supposed to keep in check/overthrow a corrupt government without the same weapons the government has access to?

[SickofSoCal]

Has anyone here done any in-depth research on the Militia Act of 1903?

[Ctwo]

Not again.

The question isn't what arms you think you should have, the question is BY WHAT STANDARD should gun restrictions be judged constitutional.

Everyone wants to craft their own personal vision of Utopia. It is unrealistic and futile.

There is no question of "what standard " for gun restrictions. That is my Utopia.

The "hard decisions" that people need to make must be taken at the individual level, again IMHO.

Unfortunately, I stop at nukes simply because of the overwhelming consequences of their use

[wjc]

Everyone wants to craft their own personal vision of Utopia. It is unrealistic and futile.

There is no question of "what standard " for gun restrictions. That is my Utopia.

The "hard decisions" that people need to make must be taken at the individual level, again IMHO.

Unfortunately, I stop at nukes simply because of the overwhelming consequences of their use

I stop at nukes because I can't afford 'em. I'd like a Tiger tank too but the tune-ups would kill me.