OK everyone....take a deep breath and relax. 
I fully comprehend the import of the Second Amendment. I understand how it got written. I understand the philosophy behind it. I understand how it has been construed by courts and policy makers alike. I understand what shall not be infringed means. I don't need a Second Amendment refresher course.
I get it. OK?
Good grief some of you are wound very tightly.
Here I thought we were kicking back around a virtual campfire knocking back a beer or two and chatting about firearms ownership. There is a reason I couched this whole question in terms of a hypothetical country and state....and it wasn't so I could get a bunch of "pry it from my cold dead hands" platitudes thrown around.
Consider the Swiss. Your typical member of the Swiss Militia has in his/her home a government issued 55x series rifle (full auto capable) and a Sig 22x series handgun. They have ammo issued for both. The ammo is stored in boxes that are only to be opened in the event of a attack/disaster/whatever. The Swiss Militia member is "regulated" in the sense that the Founders meant it. They are trained and accountable. They are available for muster. They have uniformly issued weapons and ammo. As far as the Swiss are concerned the requirements placed on the firearms owners are "reasonable regulations" for the purposes they intend. Are these the types of "reasonable regulations" that might be acceptable to members of THR?
It isn't MY premise. It is a premise offered by people I know, who are Democrats, when I tell them that they are stupid for seeking gun control because it alienates many who MIGHT vote for them. The people who put forth that premise might mean practical prohibition as opposed to "regulation" (in fact they do) but that isn't what I am trying to get at. I'm asking people what they think a reasonable regulation might be...OR...if such a thing is even possible. I think this was quite clear in my first post.
Many of you have stated that there would be no restrictions of any kind (save for prisoners being disarmed while serving their terms). Fine. That is how you would do it if given the chance. If we take that regime as a given, I understand it to mean that a civilian can own and use whatever weapons they can afford to purchase and maintain. This is also fine. Given that regime, how do you then address possible issues that might flow from it?
For example, your neighbor owns an A10. He stores several tons of 20mm DU ammunition in his garage...does this impact your property rights...or are you just a scaredy pants for worrying about the radiation?
Another question might be: If there are no restrictions, and a citizen shows themselves to be chronically negligent with their arms, causing property damage over and over again, how might they be handled? Are they subject to civil liability? They should be. Criminal liability? Do they now have restrictions placed on them?
I fully comprehend the import of the Second Amendment. I understand how it got written. I understand the philosophy behind it. I understand how it has been construed by courts and policy makers alike. I understand what shall not be infringed means. I don't need a Second Amendment refresher course.
I get it. OK?
Good grief some of you are wound very tightly.
Here I thought we were kicking back around a virtual campfire knocking back a beer or two and chatting about firearms ownership. There is a reason I couched this whole question in terms of a hypothetical country and state....and it wasn't so I could get a bunch of "pry it from my cold dead hands" platitudes thrown around.Consider the Swiss. Your typical member of the Swiss Militia has in his/her home a government issued 55x series rifle (full auto capable) and a Sig 22x series handgun. They have ammo issued for both. The ammo is stored in boxes that are only to be opened in the event of a attack/disaster/whatever. The Swiss Militia member is "regulated" in the sense that the Founders meant it. They are trained and accountable. They are available for muster. They have uniformly issued weapons and ammo. As far as the Swiss are concerned the requirements placed on the firearms owners are "reasonable regulations" for the purposes they intend. Are these the types of "reasonable regulations" that might be acceptable to members of THR?
It isn't MY premise. It is a premise offered by people I know, who are Democrats, when I tell them that they are stupid for seeking gun control because it alienates many who MIGHT vote for them. The people who put forth that premise might mean practical prohibition as opposed to "regulation" (in fact they do) but that isn't what I am trying to get at. I'm asking people what they think a reasonable regulation might be...OR...if such a thing is even possible. I think this was quite clear in my first post.
Many of you have stated that there would be no restrictions of any kind (save for prisoners being disarmed while serving their terms). Fine. That is how you would do it if given the chance. If we take that regime as a given, I understand it to mean that a civilian can own and use whatever weapons they can afford to purchase and maintain. This is also fine. Given that regime, how do you then address possible issues that might flow from it?
For example, your neighbor owns an A10. He stores several tons of 20mm DU ammunition in his garage...does this impact your property rights...or are you just a scaredy pants for worrying about the radiation?
Another question might be: If there are no restrictions, and a citizen shows themselves to be chronically negligent with their arms, causing property damage over and over again, how might they be handled? Are they subject to civil liability? They should be. Criminal liability? Do they now have restrictions placed on them?