The short answer to your question, I believe, is that 'yes'. A citizen should be able to "own, without license, a fully automatic weapon". When the constitution was written and ratified, the technology of the day was cap and ball musket. In the early 80's (if I remember correctly), the people of the Philipinnes(sp) overthrew their government and formed a democracy using the technology of the day, AK47s, tanks, M-16s, etc.Deltamud77 wrote:To overcome the liberal agenda and arguments, however, you must be able to define the meaning of arms. When the amendment was written, it meant muskets in all likelihood, not HK416s and the like. If you extrapolate out, what does this all mean? Should a citizen be able to own, without license, a fully automatic weapon...since the military has them?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.
Should a citizen be able to own stinger missiles or RPGs? What about an F-18 with armament capability?
We all know that the 2nd Amendment is not designed to protect hunting rights, but instead to protect the people from the government as well as from each other.
Where should the line be drawn and what was the original intent and should we evolve past the original intent based on modern technology could not have been contemplated when the 2nd Amendment was instituted? These are the tough arguments that pro-gun advocates must contemplate and be able to defend. Frankly, if we are being honest, they are really good questions and I am not sure there are really good answers.
The best answer resides in the premise that the "horse is out of the barn". There are too many guns and too many bad guys that would not obey the laws so the populous, at the very least, should be able to continue as it is currently, unimpeded. It is similar to the nuclear disarmament discussion between the US and Russia..."you give up yours first". However, in a way, this argument does not address constitutional intent, or even whether it is relevant on the issue anymore.
The long answer is that something needs to be done. Just because the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, does not mean that everyone is capable of the responsibility of bearing arms. We justifiably forbit convicted felons from ever owning firearms, even after they serve their sentence. We do not allow children to purchase firearms for safety reasons. And nobody believes that the mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms for those same safety reasons. Yet, there is currently no provision - anywhere - to prevent the mentally ill from doing that very thing.
The fix is remarkably simple. In the same background check for crimminal history, there can just as easily be a check for history of Mental Disease or Defect. Lets face it, if a bank can check your pay history with other businesses, and one pharmacy can check your prescription with other pharmacy's and doctors, then the sheriff should be able to check medical records for mental illness.
My $0.02