US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

Rather than add another 2nd amendment debate to these forums, I'd like to take the discussion into current territory and get some reasonable discourse as to what is currently allowed and what if any modifications or changes to the scope as it stands now people (from both sides of the debate) would like (or not like) to see. My belief is as US citizens, derision and divisiveness serve nobody, and the only logical pathway in the debate is to find common ground that the overwhelming majority of current citizens can agree upon.

To begin, the 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As I am currently aware, handguns, rifles, automatic rifles, shotguns, antique weapons and a variety of military grade hardware (with relevant permitting) are currently allowed with a couple of exceptions (such as rate of fire barring permitting, etc). I am unaware of the complete upper limit/cap on what military grade hardware is allowed (missiles, grenades, mines, etc) since it seems to be regionally dictated, but believe special permitting can be granted on a case by case basis in unique circumstances.

I'd like to hear opinions on what (if any) limit people think is reasonable regarding the scope of weaponry permitted. Since I've heard arguments suggesting that the main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to empower the citizenry of the nation to be able to withstand/fight back against a tyrannical government, I would image weaponry such as handguns and semi-automatic rifles are likely inadequate against the full might of the US military apparatus. On the flip side, is the trade-off for greater killing capacity worth the potential fallout that would arise from some deranged person using them in a more nefarious or downright evil fashion (mass killings), and if so, how does that mesh with the aforementioned logic of defending oneself against a tyrannical government.

My personal take is semi-auto handguns, semi-auto rifles (preferably bolt-action and some reasonable clip size options) and low capacity shotguns remain the normalized scope of weapon ownership, but I can understand the argument for even greater firepower. At the same time I have a rather nihilistic view of actual defense against a US military engagement where the intent is to kill its own civilians (which seems utterly futile to withstand) so I can't say that increasing the scope of weaponry would amount to much without literally enabling full access to the pinnacle of current military hardware (which seems unrealistic). I can also sympathize with those calling for some kind of more restrictive gun control - up to banning guns entirely (though I think something like that is unlikely to be actionable within the next 2 generations).

What say you ATS?

"shall not be infringed"

Sounds like you want some level of infringement then?
No. There is already too much infringement on our God-given rights.

a reply to: Wayfarer

...the only logical pathway in the debate is to find common ground that the overwhelming majority of current citizens can agree upon.

But the overwhelming majority of citizens aren't responsible for what happened. Just that lone nut.

How can we 'logically' deprive everyone of their right to self defense from them by restricting everyones 2nd amendment rights?

One fine morning, ten states away, a knock at the door: "G'morning, something gun-bad has happened and so we need you to give ups your guns. Its the only logical course of action."

Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

It's fairly complicated. It's more like where should you be able to Cary these weapons.

Should you be able to have an AR at the bar in LA or NYC?

Does a city or state have the right to regulate where you carry arms?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Until folks (not you in particular) that want to ban guns can actually articulate what guns are to be targeted I doubt there will ever be an agreement.


We have guns that are mechanically the same as the AR-15 they just have wood instead of plastic and metal for the body of the weapon. Yet the AR-15 sends people into Apoplexy and the other doesn't even register on their danger meter, still others that think a semi-automatic rifle stock can fire 800 rnds a minute.

These are just two off the top of my head examples.

shall not be infringed

what is it about that ^^^ text that you don't understand?

a reply to: toysforadults

So at the football game in Philadelphia?

originally posted by: toysforadults
shall not be infringed

what is it about that ^^^ text that you don't understand?

C'mon, this is not a difficult question. If your opinion is, "I think US civilians should be able to procure shoulder mounted stinger missiles, 120mm howitzers, etc. if their funds allow it" then just say that (and bonus points if you can articulate why).

a reply to: Wayfarer

It's not possible to answer without understanding part of maintaining a free State is an armed citizenry's ability to prevent a tyrannical government from forming.

Government should fear it's people. The founding fathers we're very clear about the need of an armed populace to defend against tyranny, not just crazy people.

With that in mind, how can you defend against tyranny with weapons that can not be useful for that purpose?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: toysforadults
shall not be infringed

what is it about that ^^^ text that you don't understand?

C'mon, this is not a difficult question. If your opinion is, "I think US civilians should be able to procure shoulder mounted stinger missiles, 120mm howitzers, etc. if their funds allow it" then just say that (and bonus points if you can articulate why).

I believe my post above this articulates quite well and argument for that.

Shall not be infringed. I will die for the constitution before I surrender anything.


By the way there are laws on the books already for owning weapons of war like a tank or artillery weapons and rocket launchers etc.

originally posted by: luthier
It's fairly complicated. It's more like where should you be able to Cary these weapons.

Should you be able to have an AR at the bar in LA or NYC?

Does a city or state have the right to regulate where you carry arms?

Great point. I think it's clear even if you can own a howitzer that there need to be limits on where you could bring those weapons.

Of course in the event of an armed uprising against a tyrannical government those limits would disappear. Should you be able to have and use an AR-15, yes, should you bring it to the grocery store ... I'd say it's not appropriate. Stick to a Glock or something.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's not possible to answer without understanding part of maintaining a free State is an armed citizenry's ability to prevent a tyrannical government from forming.

Government should fear it's people. The founding fathers we're very clear about the need of an armed populace to defend against tyranny, not just crazy people.

With that in mind, how can you defend against tyranny with weapons that can not be useful for that purpose?

Totally understand what you're saying. What weapons do you feel you'd need to actually defend yourself against a tyrannical US government?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Im comfortable with the way it is right now, honestly.

although i think you should be able to saw down a 410 shotgun legally. it makes no sense to make that illegal when you can buy a 410 pistol.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Exactly.

And if you are going to an Eagles game Mayne don't bring it...even though you may need it. You can survive batteries be thrown in most cases.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Except I'm not asking for a debate on Gun Control, I'm asking what weapons do you think should or shouldn't be allowed, and why.

Im comfortable with the way it is right now, honestly.

although i think you should be able to saw down a 410 shotgun legally. it makes no sense to make that illegal when you can buy a 410 pistol.

It's a weird one. The old judge is a hoot. About good for 12 feet but that's what it's for.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Every weapon possible with the only exceptions being ones like nuclear weapons, WMD, biological weapons.

For me it's not a question of what can you own, but when and where can you carry/use those weapons.

a reply to: luthier

Best sidearm ever for hunting. Nice finishing shot on the .45, great snake killer with the 410. Im a definite fan. Liked it so much i bought a Taurus PT740. Not a terrible pistol, the machining is a bit rough compared to higher end guns, but i carry it regularly.

a reply to: Wayfarer



Any weopon that is automatic. If certain people really want those weapons, I think far more background information on those people should be done. For instance, lets say a guy wants a regular gun to protect his home, Background check, clean, over 21, no mental issues, fine.

Guy wants more than an ordinary weapon, but lives on a ranch and has a doomsday shelter, wants a couple of automatics, none military of coarse, background check, Clean, over 21 no mental issues, and an explintion with proof of somekind, for the purchace. Also a limit on how many can be legaly obtained per person.

That is at least something. I do not think any average person has the right to own a weapon intended to do one thing and fast, Kill as many people as possible. A right to bear arms, is not obstructed, by the average citizen being only able to purchace weapons for hunting and home/personal protection.
The 2nd amendment was written at a time when men were using gunpowder and slugs...it took time to reload every single bullet. You could maybe get 3 shots off per MINUTE.