|
I voted no, but I think some clarification is in order. Are we talking restrictions above and beyond what we have? Or restrictions beyond a simple reading of the 2A (which would indicate all types of weapons for anyone)? If it's above what we have, no way, we have enough, we have things in place to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would likely do the most damage.
If it's above a simple reading of the 2A, I'd say some, very limited restrictions are reasonable. Measures to keep guns out of violent criminals and the mentally ill. Restrictions on highly destructive weapons (though I'd stop short of fully automatic weapons...they were never used often in crimes, and they'd certainly be useful to a militia) are reasonable, I think. But I wouldn't go much beyond that.
|