Now me I would like to own a warship much as John Hancock did to aid his smuggling operations.
Come ti think of it I just figured out why ole Joe Kennedy smuggled booze, it is in the new englanders blood.
Ans you can make the argument than anything other than a single sheet flat bed hand operated printing press is not protected by the fires amendmant.
let us take your argument against citizens being able to purchase(manufacture) nukes... the second amendment guarantees individuals protection against a tyrranical gov't. if that government is threatening to use nukes to annihilate an anti-government faction based in say montana, and the good people around it, i am all for the montana group acquiring the same means to destroy the government faction that would do something like this, if only for the mutual deterrent it provides... ie. the cold war... a government with nukes, and the desire to use them against its citizens is a government worth nuking... of course, our government is supposed to be us, the people. so in essence, everyone owns a piece of the nuke pie... the only problem with nukes is the massive destruction in terms of being a defensive weapon alternative. therefore, if you are limiting stronger less destructive means to prevent a nuclear tyrant from oppressing americans, such as fully automatic weapons of deterrance, then you should ban them from government as well... a slippery slope that can lead to extinction no doubt... but by not banning state of the art defensive weaponry, the tyrants of the nuclear age can and will be kept at ay from using wmd upon americans... i hope i made my point clear, some will see me as a proponent of nuclear proliferation, but i am merely being consistant in my belief that every option must be kept available to americans in the intent of the second amendment. thanks for the opportunity to express my first amendment right... teeman
Guess that means that high speed offsett presses, TV, and radio aren't protected by the first amendment either. Nor the Morman religion. Hmm, come to think of it, the Government, all three branches, seems to think that "broadcast" speech is not protected by the first amendment.
The 2nd amendment applies to an individual Right, and therefore covers all individual arms, not crew-served weapons.
Nukes, tanks, battleships, etc.... are crew-served, and therefore not covered by an amendment which recognizes the Right of individuals to bear arms.
You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.
Does that apply to other amendments in the Bill of Rights also?
So now, the first amendment doesn't cover email, television or radio?
The 4th amendment doesn't cover private automobiles?
The 8th amendment doesn't protect against again "cruel and unusual" punishments invented since then?
Such an argument is not only absurd, but totally contrary to the meaning of the Bill of Rights.