‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

[GMDino]

(02-24-2017, 11:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For 221 years, the 2nd was not interpreted by the courts as the right to private firearm ownership, but rather the right to take up arms in the military. So what we will see happen now to the amendment will be a very interesting thing.

That's why I am a bit torn on this one.

(02-24-2017, 11:07 AM)Au165 Wrote: The constitution doesn't say you have a right to any arms you feel like, only that you have the right to keep and bear arms.  I think most people would agree that regular citizens should not posses rocket launchers and nukes, however they are considered "arms" by definition. Who gets to determine what those arms are? Well that would be the legislators who have decided as the voted appointees of their constituents that this is where they would like to draw the line.

All freedoms have limits this one is no different but for some reason there are people who feel like the 2nd amendment should be practically limitless.

I've felt that way also.  I'm just not sure where the line gets drawn based on court decisions.