I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).
IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.
No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?
I mean, you can own tanks and missiles. The former if disarmed is A OK. Just can’t be registered to drive on public roads in most states (wheeler armored vehicles can be in some states). Missiles and tanks with work cannons need to have an NFA destructive device stamp, but are legal. Flamethrowers are legal in all states except California and Maryland (both of those due to fire code). I don’t see anything that would prohibit them being mounted to a vehicle.
That said, in concept I agree. I don’t want anyone except the government (and ideally I’d rather no one, but cats out of the bag) should won biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Short of that, I think some hoops need to be jumped through for some things like explosives, artillery, armed armored vehicles, and I don’t see a reason for armed helicopters or planes. Though the later I guess if you are really stinking rich and want to target shoot from your P38 some cactus on your 50,000 acres, More power to you. So I guess a license/NFA stamp or something.
For really destructive weapons I do think there need to be hoops. But how many can afford a Gulf Stream jet and some 2.75” rocket launchers and some 20mm Vulcan cannons to get level a mall? I guess some day there could be a maniacal multimillionaire or billionaire that hatched some diabolical plan.
I do think there is a line for both what can be owned and how easy it is to get. I don’t think the line is where it should be right now toward the side of “ban and take all the guns” and not more properly towards “I can own a brand spanning new RPG7 bought at Sears over the counter.
I’ve noticed a lot of people on the left have started quoting Scalia saying the 2A isn’t unlimited (I agree). They just leave off the next sentence where he says weapons in common use ARE protected. Semiautomatic rifles and assault weapons as well as high capacity magazines are in common use.
Most semi-autos use >10 round mags. Most semiautos other than sub compact pistols take magazines larger than that. I’d imagine in the billions.
There’s >20 million ARs and AKs in the US. More than 30 million total centerfire detachable magazine semiauto rifles. Probably >50 million semiauto long guns.
That’s pretty damn common use.