@SpikeTalon -- Using that reasoning, my posit would hold true and I should be able under the law to have, maintain, and display tactical nukes in my backyard. It would say that my ICBM silo, stockpile of Claymores, 50k rounds of .50 caliber AP to feed my twin mount M2A1, and whatever else I deem necessary to protect myself from a runaway central government are also protected under the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry, my friend, but the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

The fact that the government will not allow me, currently a private citizen, to possess tactical nukes and delivery systems can equally under the law determine any other type to be outside the "rights" of a citizen of this country without affecting the 2nd Amendment in any way. Type has long been under the jurisdiction of the government.

I am still waiting for a rational argument that supports the possession of such weapons types and their magazine capacities. The argument assumes too much and explains too little.

@evidentialist What I mentioned above is rational, and if you had studied history you would know that there have been tyrannical governments in the past that first either seriously diminished or totally eradicated the citizen's right to bear arms before taking them over. By right any citizen in this country should be allowed to own nukes/heavy weapons etc. People like you claim our arguments do not hold up to scrutiny, but your point on that example is rather baseless, because nukes and similar weapons have a high cost that the average citizen cannot afford, so that's not a matter of laws getting in the way of ownership there. Can you afford even one nuke? I'd think not, but if you own a business and happen to be in the business of manufacturing nukes, then you would own them. See where I'm going with this? You claim my argument does not hold up to scrutiny, but the example you provided is no better and actually more absurd. Regarding high capacity mags- one must take into consideration missed shots and if there be multiple offenders present, and with that in mind 30 round mags are not that unreasonable. A 3 or 4 round shotgun might not cut it in all situations, think about that. Ultimately, I think the root of this issue lies in the fact that certain types of weapons owned by private citizens makes you uncomfortable, and while I can somewhat understand how you feel on that the thing is these types of weapons do exist now and are not going away anytime soon, that my friend is reality, the reality that we all live in like it or not. Liberty is not free and there's no telling when someone will commit a violent act, but I do know that gun control measures do not work as criminals do not obey the laws, and would purchase arms/accessories on the black market if necessary. Do you get that now? Banning high capacity mags and bumpstocks will not solve our problems, because simply banning them will not make every one of them vanish. Lastly, in a free country one should be able to own whatever he/she wants provided it was bought for or earned, what I own is no one else's business, live and let live I say. I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that banning certain things will make them magically go away, and I for one do not believe in magic. Certain states for the longest time now have banned drugs...that worked out real well now, didn't it?

@evidentialist Seriously.... tactical nukes against it's own country... are you fucking mental??? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously saying stupid shit like that? That aside, a- No soldier in their right mind will ever turn their weapon on their own civilian population. Theirs a code of ethics they follow, and will disobey their commanding officer that tells them to do so. I graduated from a military academy and have many friends that went on to make carriers in the military, and l assure you, they would never turn a weapon on us citizens. [warontherocks.com] b- By using your logic, people shouldn't be able to buy cars that can go faster than 70 mph, buy personal jets, etc... c- Not having to re-load a ten round mag every two minutes while trying to enjoy an afternoon at the shooting range makes ones having 30, 50, 100 round capability quite understandable.

@Captain_Feelgood -- North and South, brother against brother, citizen against citizen, father against son in the bloodiest conflict in history based upon ideological differences.

A young pilot says, "But, Sir, that's damned close to that vil."

The response is: "Put your ordnance on the numbers. We'll figure it out later."

Refusing to follow orders is a serious offense under any circumstances and the chain of command serves as a buffer going up and as a hammer coming down. Now, I grant you that there would be some who would not fire on fellow citizens, but I guarantee you there would be enough who would to make any uprising backed by AR 15s a fool's errand.

As for my comments about tactical nukes in my backyard and other nonsense, yes, they were idiotic and they were intended to be idiotic, specifically to underscore the futility of the argument presented.

I live in a small town of 42,000 people. If every able-bodied man, woman, and child who knew the difference between the muzzle and the butt were issued an AR 15, what would be left of our defending force after a single F-18 strike? We would be decimated, my friend. There would be survivors, of course. Most of them would not want to face that again. That would be the result if only one member of this state's ANG followed his/her orders, and anyone in the military who had the balls to turn their weapons against the government would find themselves in a deep state of hurt.

The military does not seek to instill altruism in its members.