The following article is built on a discussion I had involving gun control (as many articles are about). The specific topic for this one was trying to determine how much gun control would be acceptable and why.
The gun control that most gun owners agree with involve convicted criminals, specifically felons as well as those who have been convicted of even misdemeanor violent crimes, not having guns. We are talking about people who have clearly already presented their lack of willingness to abide by our laws. This creates a high risk that they will not abide by other laws.
Restricting the mentally ill is a tough road because we would have to be able to clearly define the various mental illnesses that should prevent ownership. Are we only looking for mental illness that would lead us to believe said person is at high risk to harm others, or would that include high risk of self-harm? If self-harm is considered, be prepared to step on toes as the entire “trans” community (gender dysphoria) already carries one of the highest risks of self-harm (and that’s just one example of being careful of discrimination). Similarly, there would need to be a way to gauge and review those types of mental states during a firearm purchase that doesn’t inherently violate our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to due process. Why do those rights need to be taken into account? Because those individuals deemed mentally unfit would be treated equally to criminals who had their chance for due process when it comes to a right provided by another Amendment.
Next you inquire what limitations on the type of “arms” should exist. For those who are “purists” (I guess that’s what they should be called…?), the answer is “none of them”. The Second Amendment affords the people unrestricted ownership of “arms”. We understand that there is a “fair argument” in attempting to not allow the standard citizen owning any kind of “arms” they may afford. This is interest of public safety. Fair does not necessarily mean agreeable. Let me explain why. The Second Amendment was created to ensure the concept of the preservation of self, family members, friends, property, other people at large, and country. This protection of the ability to preserve those things extends from the smallest scenario involving defending one’s own home from intrusion or theft, up to and including fending off a tyrannical government attempting to rob us of our rights. An argument presented by those in favor of the “fair argument” claim that the “arms” citizens have access to will not protect against the might of our own military. The rebuttal to this is… Those people are right. We would be hard pressed to effectively defend ourselves from our own military. This raises a serious question of why are they right, though. The reason is that we don’t have access to all of the “arms” the military uses. We have allowed for “fair argument” regulations to defeat one of the primary purposes of our Second Amendment: preservation of country.
To more directly answer some of your suggestions for no regulations: Any rate of fire or caliber? No restriction should exist. Fully automatic? No restriction should exist. Land mines? No restriction should exist. Nerve gas? No restriction should exist (though our own military doesn’t even use it). Hand grenades? No restriction should exist. To what end other than to kill people? … Yes. Preservation of my rights and the rights of others may involve a necessity to take another person’s life. A key point that must be remembered is that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not strictly to allow me to hunt and, therefore, the argument of “those are only meant to kill” is moot.
Mike H