To prevent a rogue militia from fighting for an alternative cause or agenda.
Like our founders fighting for liberty against an oppressive government?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Where the government is afraid of the people, you have freedom. Where the people are afraid of the government, you have tyranny. Limiting civilians to lesser arms than those available to the military grants government carte blanche to impose it's will on the people. Our revolutionary war would have never been successful if England had "regulated" the arms available to the colonists and thereby ensured they were far lesser than those available to the British military. Luckily for us, all "arms" were about the same at that time. They are far more advanced now and that's why it's more important than ever that the 2nd be recognized as allowing civilians the right to keep and bear the arms necessary to defend themselves.
Because a soldier, in theory, is well regulated. As in part of a well regulated militia.
I ask again, what exactly do you think regulations are? Rules? Laws? Standards of conduct? Here's a law... You are free to exercise your rights in any way you see fit in the pursuit of your own happiness BUT you may not violate the rights of others in the process.
A civilian is not, nor should they be.
You say civilians should not be regulated yet that's exactly what you're doing by limiting the "arms" they are legally allowed to keep and bear with an arbitrary standard far below that of the US military.
Every
legitimate power used by government is based on individual rights. Our military doesn't have some super rights, all rights are individual rights and apply equally to every individual, so the arms of our military are an extension of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The legitimacy of our military to act in our defense comes from the individual right of self defense, the US military acts as our agent of self defense to protect our rights on a national scale. Should our government (and therefore military) ever become destructive to those ends, who would be capable of protecting We The People?
Without using an appeal to fear or consequences, tell me why a civilian should not be allowed to own an RPG. It's already against the law for him to use his right to bear arms to violate the rights of others... So you need to explain why his right should be infringed upon (limited to an arbitrary standard) and where government derives this power to infringe upon a right that government is specifically barred from infringing upon - shall not be infringed.
But, I like your thinking. If civilians gain full access to military weapons the first thing I'm gonna do is buy me a stealth jet. That will be a hell of a lot more fun than my motorcycle
I doubt you have
$120 million laying around to purchase a stealth jet, most people don't.... So the market would effectively "regulate" the arms available to the public without the need for arbitrary government standards.
