Replies

Going off on a tangent for just a moment...

To be consistent, we may have to include nuclear...can't figure out how to stay true to the Constitution while banning government's ultimate weapon.

There is a rational for allowing one to exercise the right to own military weapons, such as true assault rifles, while not allowing nukes. Thornwell Simons posted this essay, The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception to the RKBA, which explains why indescriminant weapons like nukes are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. In a nutshell, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to actually use those arms. But the exercise of one's rights assumes that no one else is denied their rights as a result of your actions. Thus while you have the right to defende "hearth and home" from criminals, you haven't the right to blow up your neighbor's home in the process. Nuclear weapons cannot be used, either in self defense or as part of one's duty to the militia, without harming innocents and depriving them of their rights.

There's also another argument that uses the fact that "arms" (rifles, pistols, etc) was defined separately from ordinance (cannons, etc) in colonial times, and extending that logic to today, large ordinance type weapons would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post. While most anti-RKBA's interpret "well regulated" as "well controlled", in the context of the 2nd. amendment, this is a non sequitur. However, in the military terminology of the 18th. century, regulated meant "Regulars", as in "Regular Soldiers vs Militia", and implies well equiped and trained.

However, regular soldiers do not have possession of nuclear weapons. In this country, the ONLY person allowed a CCW for nukes is the president.

In a nutshell, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to actually use those arms. But the exercise of one's rights assumes that no one else is denied their rights as a result of your actions. Thus while you have the right to defende "hearth and home" from criminals, you haven't the right to blow up your neighbor's home in the process

It's criminals in the government that the second amendment was really aimed at. In those days individuals could own cannon, and ships aremed with such cannon. They were the ultimate weapon of the day. Otherwise the power given by the Constitution to Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal would make little sense.

Yes, you cannot blow up your neighbors house, but you can't shoot it full of holes either. If you would ban the means to do former, then logically you could ban the means to do the latter. Realistically, how many could afford a private nuke. As for those that could and wanted to, would a mere "law" stop them?