Where I was going is that if you are a criminal--the bad kind, like a violent felon, your rights should be suspended for a time. And the 2A only applies to citizens, so while I appreciate the desire and need for illegal aliens to defend themselves, they don't deserve the protection of the 2A.
I agree that most types of "arms," meaning firearms, should not be made illegal in any way, because that would infringe. There does need to be a sanity check for arms that are not firearms, though. I could say that my canister of VX nerve gas is my preferred "arm" or that an electrified fence around my property capable of killing anyone instantly is my "arm." There is room for rationale debate on this.
Fair enough. I completely agree that a semi-auto firearm, pistol or rifle, should not have any restrictions, it's at the fringe of the definition of "firearm" or "citizen" that it gets sticky. Should every citizen have the right to a 40mm grenade launcher? The risk to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for other citizens might be at risk. A 7.62mm minigun? I don't have a problem with a Barrett 50 cal, because you have to consciously aim and select your target, but an M2 full auto? High probability of denying other citizens who are not threatening you of their right to life.
I'm being intentionally provocative here. I own ARs and support the right for almost anyone to have one. I would extend incarcerated to those paroled for violent offenses. To me, if you have the right to vote, you have the right to bear arms. If you gave up that right by being a loser, or never had it, 2A doesn't apply.
The founding fathers were not criminals. Did the framers allow the criminal leaders of Shay's Rebellion to have guns under the 2nd amendment? Do you favor bank robbers and child rapists to own guns after they serve their 20-30 years in prison?
Law-abiding = well regulated.
Did the framers intend for criminals to have guns when they incorporated this amendment? If they did, then you are right.
Where I was going is that if you are a criminal--the bad kind, like a violent felon, your rights should be suspended for a time. And the 2A only applies to citizens, so while I appreciate the desire and need for illegal aliens to defend themselves, they don't deserve the protection of the 2A.
I agree that most types of "arms," meaning firearms, should not be made illegal in any way, because that would infringe. There does need to be a sanity check for arms that are not firearms, though. I could say that my canister of VX nerve gas is my preferred "arm" or that an electrified fence around my property capable of killing anyone instantly is my "arm." There is room for rationale debate on this.
I think we agree. I think.
Fair enough. I completely agree that a semi-auto firearm, pistol or rifle, should not have any restrictions, it's at the fringe of the definition of "firearm" or "citizen" that it gets sticky. Should every citizen have the right to a 40mm grenade launcher? The risk to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for other citizens might be at risk. A 7.62mm minigun? I don't have a problem with a Barrett 50 cal, because you have to consciously aim and select your target, but an M2 full auto? High probability of denying other citizens who are not threatening you of their right to life.
I'm being intentionally provocative here. I own ARs and support the right for almost anyone to have one. I would extend incarcerated to those paroled for violent offenses. To me, if you have the right to vote, you have the right to bear arms. If you gave up that right by being a loser, or never had it, 2A doesn't apply.
The founding fathers were not criminals. Did the framers allow the criminal leaders of Shay's Rebellion to have guns under the 2nd amendment? Do you favor bank robbers and child rapists to own guns after they serve their 20-30 years in prison?
On what basis would you deny Dylan Roof a handgun right now if he asked for one under his 2nd amendment rights?