Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "How Many More Kids Have To Die For The 2nd Amendment?" video.

And yet the Las Vegas shooter years back would never have been able to gun down all those concert goers from that hotel window with something shorter. The fact of the matter is that it's more an issue of weapons getting into the wrong hands and having too many bullets lined up for shooting in the magazine. Just simply, limiting the rounds to something reasonable and putting safeguards into place to keep known dodgy people from getting their hands on these weapons would do a ton to improve the situation.
2
@georgegillespie3737 That's his point. Why is the line where it is when the 2nd amendment does not state anywhere in it that it's firearms specifically? Logically, it would extend further than that. And the reason for that, is primarily marketing, I'm sure there are folks that would want those things as well, but trying to justify chemical weapons or bombs to the general public would remove the last little veneer about this being about self-defense, hunting or other sport shooting.
1
Essentially yes, the more accurate description of it would be that the national guard does have access to pretty much all of those things. I think nuclear weapons and cruise missiles are about the only thing they don't get that the military does. The "2nd amendment" that people refer to that applies to everybody else doesn't exist and never did. That's the actual expansion that you're referring to. It's not that it's broader than it used to be in terms of weaponry, it's that it's broader in terms of whom can use it as justification for owning weapons.
1
A couple of things, unfortunately, most people never hear from 2nd amendment advocates that aren't crazy. They just don't get any media coverage. And secondly, pretty much being a supporter of the 2nd amendment in modern times means that he doesn't understand the history of the amendment. The 2nd amendment basically only applies to a vanishingly small number of Americans and was always intended as a replacement for a standing military, not in addition to a standing military. And lastly, it's questionable if the 2nd amendment is even an amendment, the version ratified did not match the version that was passed, so in a sane world, it would have been tossed and the process done again. The next best thing would be to just parse it as written, which is to say that you've got to be a member of a well-regulated militia as that's clearly what the 2nd amendment was for.
1