Ocin, here is the context I find conflicting. In the US, if there was a call up to form a militia, let's say to supplement the regular military forces (Army, Navy, Air Force..) during war or attack on our soil, the Court in the Heller decision indicated that the potential members of that militia need be pre-equipped in similar fashion as are the regulars they would support. The ability of this country to field a viable fighting force is clearly set forth in the first words of the Second Amendment. Machineguns have been a military staple for 100 years. How then can such firearms not be covered under the protections of the 2nd Amendment? They are already the most heavily regulated forms of weaponry in civilian hands under the National Firearms Act of 1933 (or 1932).
Since 1933 and again during the 1968 amnesty, hundreds of thousands of people have paid the US Government to register and possess machineguns and similar weapons of war and defense. VERY few problems have occurred with those heavily regulated weapons, other than stolen ones (which triggers ATF investigations).
That is my basis for questioning Director Sullivan's position statement that machineguns are not protected under the 2ND Amendment.
Here, military weapons, owned by and under the control of the government, are exempt from civilian gun laws.
Mac.
Well DDMack, this is what I think as a non US citizen:
One could read your 2nd amendment in 2 ways, once as if the (well regulated) militia are authorised to bear arms and second that the people can form a (well regulated) militia and have the right to keep and bear arms, and then not just for self defense but also for fun, antagonising others, showing off or what other good, bad or no reason at all. The only real way to clarify this is actually asking those who drafted this amendment. Problem: they are long dead, so that is not going to work.
As for the equipment required for these militia: if they should be effective, then yes, they should be equipped similarly like or at least complementary to the standing armed forces, which would include a variety in weapons which would be unsuited for self defense.
As for the RKBA for self defense, which, IMHO is at the heart of the controversy, one would first have to establish whether individual civilians have a right to RKBA or not. It may have been in earlier times that this right was well established, but leave it to lawyers and politicians to cloud these issues in such a way that no one really knows what any law, constitution or amendment says.
I think that the best way out of this stalemate would be to rewrite that 2nd amendment in such a way that it would be clear as to how it is meant. I think that the best way for that would be to draft up 2 amendments, one stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia, and another stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia AND the right to keep and bear arms for this and that purposes. Subsequently these two drafts would then have to be put up for popular vote. This would not only deal with the constitutional question as to whether you have a right to own and carry a gun for self protection, but also put an end to the ever lasting debate as to what the American people really want: to own and carry guns or get rid of them.
I realise that this would not stop all discussions and controversy. You would still have to clarify and define what suitable weapons for self defense are, whether they include weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, or short barreled rifles or shotguns or not. It would however put an end to the debate about what the amendments say, and that would be a huge step forward.
As I said, this is my opinion, as a non US citizen. Feel free to disagree.
Ocin