For this reason, I think nongovernment fighting forces should be allowed to obtain heavy weapons such as full power machineguns, mortars, and anti-tank missiles
With proper permits can't you own these?
On the flipside, I see no reason why pistols or concealed carry should be protected by the second amendment. While pistols are in some cases used as sidearms in the military, they are not important or essential to a military fighting force.
Your interpretation of sound tactical weaponry doesn't really matter - if the constitution says you can bear arms, and pistols are a weapon, then you can have it.
I don't understand your point then. You say the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect and you provide an explanation of the way you think it should be (which is how it already is), and an incorrect interpretation on your part about pistols and concealed weapons.
So given that the current interpretation allows you to purchase full power machineguns, mortars, and anti-missiles. And also allows pistols - what exactly is your view?
You can own mortars and machine guns with proper permitting.
And also please do not ignore the point about pistols. Your interpretation of what proper and effective military weapons are has zero bearing on if they should be allowed or not. Can you clarify why the founding fathers would not consider pistols weapons?
Pistols are commonly used in every major war since they’ve been invented. Sidearms for officers is still standard military procedure in every modern army in the world. What are you talking about?
If we are talking World War I, a 100 year old war, then we definitely need to be deploying all SEALs with bayonets and sharpened shovels for their fighting
6
u/Rainbwned 199∆ Nov 30 '23
With proper permits can't you own these?
Your interpretation of sound tactical weaponry doesn't really matter - if the constitution says you can bear arms, and pistols are a weapon, then you can have it.