The US Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), provides a strong legal basis for allowing citizens to own any ordinary military gear, including fully automatic rifles. In that case, the court addressed the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, and specifically, the issue of whether a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon that was protected by the Second Amendment.
The Court found that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of citizens to own and use firearms that were "in common use at the time" and had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The Court also noted that the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of any and all types of weapons, such as those that were "dangerous or unusual."
Based on this precedent, it can be argued that fully automatic rifles, which are widely used in military and law enforcement contexts, are "in common use" and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. Additionally, as weapons that are designed for rapid fire and combat situations, fully automatic rifles can be said to have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
Furthermore, the fact that fully automatic rifles are not "dangerous or unusual" is evidenced by their widespread use in the military and law enforcement. Additionally, there are many law-abiding citizens who are capable of safely owning and using such weapons for lawful purposes such as hunting, self-defense, and target shooting.
Therefore, it can be argued that the US v. Miller precedent provides a strong legal basis for allowing citizens to own any ordinary military gear, including fully automatic rifles, so long as such ownership is for lawful purposes and does not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety.
It would be amusing to have an AI that fearcely disputes shill misinformation about Q, the posts, PDJT, MAGA, and anons.