Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
Congress has outlawed certain weapons plenty of times. Like I said, the 2nd amendment has never been interpreted as all or nothing. Semi-automatic is just a line that's been drawn. It can be redrawn.

If you know of a specific Supreme Court case where they outline in detail what counts as "arms" please post it, but as far as I know that's always been a vague term even among textualists (who care what the law meant at the time). Living constitutionalists are not obliged to particularly care what "arms" meant to the founders, but even in a modern context it's kind of vague, no doubt because of that term's relationship to the 2nd amendment.
Ive stated before, and i do believe, the founders were intentionally vague in referring to weapons as arms, because they were certainly intelligent enough to know that new weapons were bound to come along, and the people in their right to freedom from an opressive government (or as in our case a do nothing on crime government) had the right to the weapons of the day.
I certainly believe some arms should be reserved just for the military for the discharge of their duty and their protection. However, i firmly believe that whatever weapon a police officer is considered appropriate to have, a citizen should be able to have as well.
And let's be honest, it's not hard to build a rpg or a flamethrower is you really want one. Or a bomb for that matter. They are illegal, but if someone wanted one bad enough they could make their own.
And i cant wait to read on the ammo supplies being run on if he issues an order restricting it. Because what do we know about government restrictions on anything? It instantly increases demand.