The 1st amendment protects my right to "bear arms"

[Tiggeroshii]

...it doesn't specify what kind of "arms" they are talking about, and it most certainly is not limited to guns. Find the right Supreme Court and it'll be guaranteeing my right to carry a nuke.

So where the fuck is my nuke?

:wtf:

[Skip Intro]

1. It specifically specifies bear arms, although I believe on bears have a right to bear arms....

hey, it's Friday night...

[petronius]

2. Perhaps you meant 2nd Amendment?

Although I suppose there's an argument to be made under the 1st as well...

[hansberrym]

3. Lost nukes must be reported promptly. That is all.

[gejohnston]

4. refers to individual small arms

not crew serviced or large assault weapons (not to be confused so-called "assault weapons"). While the Swiss militia takes pistols and assault rifles home(depending which they are issued), the big stuff is stored in armories and cantonment areas. Besides, unless you are one of the Kochs, you could not afford one.

[TheMadMonk]

23. Bet on the Swiss?

In interpretation and practice the SWISS requirement is that a citizen MUST present arms in defese of the state. No more. No less. Armouries are provided for the use of the populace, but the populace is under no compulsion to make use of them.

Pistol, rifle, ack-ack battery, or thermonuclear device, the Swiss constitution does not make a distinction. It simply requires that citizens be ready to stand in defence of the nation.

[Starboard Tack]

34. Where does it refer to individual small arms?

Or is that just one of the many subsequent interpretations?

[Euromutt]

44. In the word "bear"

I hope I don't need to do any dic-swinging to point out that "bear" means "carry" and thus the arms covered by the 2nd Amendment are those that can be transported and brought into action by a single individual. That puts the cutoff point short of GPMGs and mortars, which typically require 2-3 bods to operate, and I'll tell you from personal experience that man-portable SAMs require at least two bods and a 4x4 to carry the reloads and the battery charger, so there's no "bear" there.

[Starboard Tack]

49. So it's OK to carry RPG's, blow-pipes, spears, uzis etc.?

Not to forget those easily carried suitcase nukes.
And you left Holland to be able to carry that shit? Unbelievable.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. Oddly yes.

RPG? Sure. Without the ammo, its merely a tube. Perfectly legal to purchase and carry. Don't even think you need a tax stamp for it, but don't quote me. The ammo is a different story.

Blow-pipes? Again - hollow tube. Legal to own and carry anywhere in the United States, no permit required.

Spears? Nothing but a long stick with a point on one end. Again, legal to own and carry although you look pretty stupid.

Uzis? Again - perfectly legal and legal to carry in most states, but check your local laws. In some states they might qualify as a long arm, in others as a pistol. Either way, the Micro-Uzi machine pistol would be a bit difficult since I'm not sure any of them made it into the states prior to the 1986 ban.

See what happens when you haven't a clue what you're talking about?

[Starboard Tack]

51. Great. So all we need to do is ban the ammo.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

52. Yeah...good luck with that.

Would be like banning ink, and about as hard to implement.

You are aware that ammunition can be very easily hand-rolled so to speak?

[Starboard Tack]

55. Lot's of things can be done at home. Doesn't make them legal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. Banning something does not make it cease to exist...

I really do not know why you seem to think it does...

[Starboard Tack]

59. Did I say that?

Making something illegal, with very stiff penalties attached, tends to be extremely effective, because most people don't want to spend years of their lives incarcerated.
So, when it happens, you feel free to tote away to your heart's content.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. Yes ST - it was SO effective with alcohol in the 20's...

and it is so effective now with drugs.

[Starboard Tack]

64. You may not have noticed WHAP, but drugs and alcohol are consumed to make one feel happy

That's their intended purpose. Handguns' intended purpose is to make insecure people feel safer by being able to make other people dead. But you knew that, didn't you?

[Glassunion]

65. Drugs are consumed to make one happy.

In order to feed that "happy" that same "one" feels it necessary to rob and murder.

It also gives others who deal in it greed and a desire to murder over its trade.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. Bzzzt WRONG

You made a hell of a leap there ST. The intended purpose of a handgun is not to make an insecure person feel safer, it is to provide a tool of reasonable size and utility for self defense. Nothing more.

Since you have now resorted to utterly baseless attacks and broad brush smears, our conversation has ended.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Phew! Thank God. Bye bye.

[Euromutt]

62. Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575

The SCOTUS has already established a precedent holding that you can't try to do an end run around a right by going after ancillary materials needed to exercise that right. A firearm without ammunition is as much use as a printing press without ink and paper, and impeding access to ink and paper has been ruled to violate freedom of the press, even if it didn't directly affect printing presses themselves.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. But, but, but.....

...that's different! Ink never killed anyone and the press doesn't exist for the purpose of killing people!





(do i REALLY need to use the sarcasm tag?)

[Euromutt]

57. Suitcase nukes are a myth

Soviet engineers were not what you'd call experts at miniaturization. The closest to a man-portable nuclear weapon anyone is actually known (as opposed to rumored) to have made was the U.S. Mk-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition, and that stretched the definition of "man-portable," being a 60x40 cm cylinder weighing in at ~150 lbs.

When it comes to non-disposable anti-tank weapons--such as RPGs--you're not going to keep one operational for very long with the ammo the operator can carry (typically three reloads for an RPG-7), so realistically, you're going to need a second bod to haul ammo, or frequent resupply, e.g. from the squad's APC.

And I left the Netherlands to live with the woman who, for the past nine years, has been my wife. Being accorded the ability to defend myself when the agents of the state aren't immediately on hand is an added bonus.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Really? A myth? Like handguns are a defensive tool?

Suitcase Nukes

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions.

The Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn’t take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons. These types of weapons can also be as big as two footlockers.

The warhead of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb consists of a tube with two pieces of uranium, which, when rammed together, would cause a blast. Some sort of firing unit and a device that would need to be decoded to cause detonation may be included in the “suitcase.”

Another portable weapon is a “backpack” bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three “coffee can-sized” aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It’s kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters.
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

[Euromutt]

67. Oh, how could I have forgotten to mention the Mk-54 SADM?

Oh, hold on, I actually did mention it in my previous post. Whatever the "bare warhead package" may have weighed, the complete weapon--H-912 transport container and all--weighed 150 lbs, not 51. As I said, that's seriously stretching the definition of "man-portable." To compare, the M28 ("light") Davy Crockett, which also used the W54 warhead, could be carried for short distances by a three-man team; normally, it was transported by jeep. You might as well point out that a .45 ACP round is much smaller and lighter than a 1911.

As for the claims that "National Terror Alert" site, their accuracy can be divined from the fact the author thinks "Pu-239" is the designation of a weapon system; it's an isotope of plutonium. Regarding supposed Soviet "backpack" and "suitcase" nukes, the fact is that nobody's ever actually seen one of these fabled RA-115s or any other miniature Sov nuclear weapon, and I will point out again that we're talking about people who had to use vacuum tubes in the avionics of their primary strategic air defense interceptor of the 1970s and 1980s--the MiG-25 "Foxbat"--because making transistors was beyond their ability (yeah, yeah, "resistant to extreme cold and immune to EMP"; bollocks).

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

72. Oh my, she's getting catty, my dears...

Yeah, when you have to resort to the "guilt by association" tactics, it's a sure sign even you've finally had to admit you're all out of arguments.

Ever read Bravo Two Zero, incidentally? McNab reckoned that his patrol members were each hauling ~210 lbs of weapons, equipment and supplies when they were initially inserted, and even they--hardcore SAS lads--couldn't carry that load from the drop-off point to the proposed observation post in one go. And once the patrol believed they'd been compromised, they ditched everything but their weapons and belt kits in fairly short order.

Similarly, the U.S. army and marine corps doctrine is that an infantryman's "approach march load" (what he carries on patrol, and on the way to but not during the fight) should not exceed 72 lbs, while his "fighting load" should not exceed 48 lbs. However, during operations in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003, approach march loads averaging over 100 lbs were commonplace, which in combination with heat and altitude rapidly wore out even paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to the point that moving even a few kilometers over comparatively flat terrain became a challenge.

Very simply, no matter strong and fit you are, you can't fight while hauling 150 lbs, and you can't even stay ready to fight if you're having to haul 150 lbs over the hills. Carrying too much gear wears you out, it's that simple.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Why would you need to stand and fight if you had a suitcase nuke?

All very interesting and yes I did read Bravo Two Zero (good book). I think you made my point, though. You were the one who said one guy had to be able to carry it, not for ant specific distance or under specific conditions. I have no idea what you mean about "guilt by association". Did you know her, by chance? I did meet her in Amsterdam.

[Euromutt]

75. That kind of *my* point: you *can't* fight with a 150-lb weapon system

Something like a SADM isn't an individual weapon: it's a strategic weapon that happens to use a man--specifically a combat engineer--as its delivery system. At least, in the final stage, since the idea was to insert the combat engineer and the weapon by parachute, which means much of the delivery would actually be done by aircraft. Moreover, the engineer was to be accompanied by a second parachutist to "provide support," i.e. carry the engineer's food and water, walk point and provide overwatch (because it's difficult to pay attention to your surroundings when you're humping a 150-lb load, you tend to get focused on where you're putting your feet), etc. And with that, we're really no longer talking about a weapon "that can be transported and brought into action by a single individual," as I wrote in post #44.

I have no idea what you mean about "guilt by association".

Sure you don't.

You remind me of a woman <...> who couldn't wait to return to Rhodesia <...> "So I can live a life of luxury and have a bunch of Kaffirs wait on me."

What, you think you can tell someone he reminds you of some racist neocolonialist trollop and expect that to draw anything other than a response that forum rules do not allow to be posted?of a nature that would violate forum rules if posted?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Nobody said anything about allowed

It has to do with capability.

Kinda like how a blind guy isn't "allowed" to watch a movie....

[oneshooter]

68. Handguns are a very good defensive tool. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

71. In your opinion. Most of us prefer to use our brains, but you know that.

[krispos42]

5. Any item that is designed to be carried and employed by a single person.

There is a general public-safety standard (similar in concept to the "can't falsely yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater") that applies, and it seems to generally accepted that if the shooter cannot precisely control the shot being fired, it's either illegal or heavily restricted.

This standard is what makes explosives, artillery shells, and full-automatic fire difficult and expensive to acquire... the damage they do is indiscriminate. Blood-vessel-bursting shock waves, clouds of shrapnel, and streams of bullets do not allow the shooter discriminate. One-shot-per-trigger-pull does.

The current standard is .50 caliber or smaller, with sporting-purpose exceptions that let the use of shotguns (12 gauge = .79 caliber) and rifle rounds like the .600 Nitro Express.

That seems to be a comfortable median; nobody is seriously arguing against this.

[ileus]

6. are nukes considered DDs by the ATF?

[HALO141]

48. Huh. Good question.

I would think the fissionable material would be the purview of the NRC while I suppose the HE detonator would fall under ATF jurisdiction. The device itself, though, I don't know. A gun-type device is a relatively simple design and not a firearm so does it fall under any sort of regulation?

[Lint Head]

7. I want a drone with a heat seeking nuclear guided missile.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Then George W. Bush was your man.

;-)

[rl6214]

8. More importantly is where is your knowledge of our constitution?

You can't be asking about your ability to own nukes if you don't know that the 1st is free speeck and the 2nd is right to keep and bear arms.

Unrec for stupidity.

[Union Scribe]

9. Wow. Rarely has so much fail been packed into such a short post.

WTF indeed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Eloquent... nice n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Um... NO.

"...carry a nuke."

Nukes are not man portable.
The weight of the fissionable material, enough implosion triggering IHE such as TATB and a vessel strong enough to contain the implosion would not be carryable.

Maybe Superman could lift it but he wouldn't need to have it. ;)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Not true. Nuclear devices have been made as small/light as 50lbs !!

Specifically the Mk54/W54 warhead... 10 to 1000 ton detonation capacity. See picture below. This was possibly the smallest implosion type nuclear device ever made. Small enough to fit in a large backpack and about 50lbs. It could even be housed in large artillery shells and fired out of howitzer-type cannons. Implosion type devices contain a subcritical amount of nuclear material surrounded by a shell of specifically shaped (lensed) high explosives. Materials of precision density and calculated geometry between the explosives and nuclear core act to "focus" the explosive shockwave so that the shockwave from all sides meet within the core simultaneously and, at molecular level, the atoms are "squeezed" by the shockwave/compression to subcritical densities. Sinchronous detonation of dozens of explosive lenses is very complex - it requires EBW primary initiation, if I recall correctly.

Also, gun-type nuclear devices (similar to Little Man depoyed against Japan) can be theoretically made as small as 24-36 inches long and several inches in diameter. Such a device could easily fit in a rifle case or large briefcase. Gun type devices simply use a gun barrel to propel two sub-critical masses of material together at magnum velocity speeds that, when joined, achieve supercriticality. Very inefficient but also VERY simple... so simple infact, that the US never even tested the Little Man device prior to dropping it on Japan. With enough uranium, a drunken hilbilly could make one using simple machine tools in their basement (good thing U235 is extremely rare).

W54 Warhead:


Mk54 H-912 Nuclear Transport Container ("backpack nuke")

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. My bad.

I forgot about those mini-bombs. ;)

[one-eyed fat man]

46. Davy Crockett

The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield equivalent to 10 or 20 tons of TNT (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead).

While in service, the joke was that the Davy Crockett had a range of of 2 kilometers and the warhead had a bursting radius of 3 kilometers. Even at a low yield setting, the M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).

[spin]

12. The 1st amendment protects your right to free speech ...

your freedom to your choice of religion, your right to peacefully assemble, your right to petition for a governmental redress of grievances and freedom on the press.

In all fairness, it the First Amendment is far more important than the second. That's why it is the first. The second amendment is primarily the guarantee or warranty clause for the First Amendment and all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(On a side note, if our representatives tried to write the Bill of Rights, the document they produced would have at least 1000 pages and be unreadable and impossible to comprehend or understand. It would also contain numerous loopholes for the rich and the big corporations.)

***

As far as your argument that you should be able to own a nuclear weapon because the Second Amendment allows you that right, you have to understand the meaning of the word "arms".

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[Hoyt]

14. I cannot carry a sword in public, but just about any fool can carry a gun or two.

Does that link define "Militia" and "State"?

[one-eyed fat man]

17. There is no restriction on swords in Kentucky

You may wear a sword, properly in a scabbard or a sheath. You may not wave about or brandish a naked blade, but to simply wear a sword is not illegal. Merely openly wearing a sidearm, whether a pistol in a holster, a belt knife in a sheath or a saber in a scabbard is NOT brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner.

Sword canes, where the sword is disguised as a walking stick is considered a concealed deadly weapon and the bearer must have a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon.

Our Court of Appeals made it pretty plain.

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state... If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Holland v. Commonwealth, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 893 (Ky. 1956)

"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to...he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon..." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth,i 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931)

It's your own fault you live in a place with a stupid law.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Good. Your government is just looking out for you by protecting you from your own ingnorance.

Carrying a sword is silly when compared to carrying a gun. Swords are large and heavy and have a very limited range of usefullness. They also require the user to have minimum levels of fitness/agility/skill to use - effectively ensuring the "strongest" combatant will win.

The government is just ensuring that you make a proper/effective choice when you choose to arm yourself for defense! :tup:

[spin]

26. Much depends on where you live. I agree that it makes no sense that if ...

you can legally carry a firearm, you can't carry other weapons.

That's why I like living in Florida. I can carry a fixed blade knife concealed since I have a Florida concealed weapons permit.

2011 Florida Statutes
Chapter 790 > Section 06

790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—
(1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/790.06

I could probably carry a sword concealed just as I probably could carry a shotgun concealed, however the length and bulk of such weapons makes this impractical or at the minimum extremely difficult. Although it could be pointed out that Doc Holliday carries a 10 gauge double-barreled shotgun under his coat at the famous gun fight at the O.K. Corral.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

***snip***

When Virgil Earp learned that Wyatt was talking to the Cowboys at Spangenberg's gun shop he picked up a 10-gauge or 12-gauge, short, double-barreled shotgun<42>:185 from the Wells Fargo office around the corner on Allen Street. To avoid alarming Tombstone's public, Virgil returned to Hafford's Saloon carrying the shotgun under his long overcoat. He gave the shotgun to Doc Holliday who hid it under his overcoat. He took Holliday's walking-stick in return.<60>:89 From Spangenberg's, the Cowboys moved to the O.K. Corral where witnesses overhead them threatening to kill the Earps. For unknown reasons they moved a block north to an empty lot next to C. S. Fly's boarding house where Doc Holliday lived.<2>:4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

As far as the link The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendmenthttp://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html defining the words "Militia" and "State", the terms are discussed.

[Hoyt]

27. I think "guncite.com" is a bit biased, but what's new. They are clearly wrong regarding 2A.

[spin]

29. of course you feel guncite.com is biased. You like bradycampaign.org ...

Your opinion on the 2A and mine are both technically irrelevant. Everybody has opinions. The opinions and decisions of SCOTUS are what counts. Even the Big Nine don't totally agree on the issue.

[Lurks Often]

28. Hoyt, you shouldn't be allowed to carry a spork in public

much less anything really dangerous. If you don't know what a spork is, it is a spoon with fork tines on the end of it. Sometimes used when camping or given to small children who can't be trusted to use a fork without injuring themselves.

And Hoyt, I carry at least 7 or 8 guns in public, along with two healthy young people following behind me to carry all the ammo for those 7 or 8 guns.



And yes moderators I know this is a personal attack, but sometimes Hoyt makes it too easy and too hard not to resisting mocking him

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. You may want to give up on that lie Hoyt

You most assuredly can carry a sword in public. The fact that you think you cannot has no bearing on reality.

[gejohnston]

43. until Wyoming repealed the CCW law,

you could open carry a sword, but needed a CCW for a sword cane. In case you are wondering, the law was written and passed in 1887. Now if the new non law applies to everyone, like Vermont, or only allows residents to carry without permit you will have to check.

[PavePusher]

13. Teh Stooopyd....

does it hurt when it burns that strongly?

[Tiggeroshii]

15. I'm just glad nobody rec'd it.

May it forever be lost in the bowels of DU flubbery once dropped to the bottom of the gundgeon...

[DrDan]

16. the 1st Amendment protects your right to "bare" arms

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. Good one!

:fistbump:

[slackmaster]

19. Auto-Unrec for getting the amendment number wrong and posting Nuclear Straw Man

So where the fuck is my nuke?

We all own them. All of us. They belong to us.

The First Amendment protects your right to post stupid crap on the Internet.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. Old and Busted = the personal nuke

New Hotness = the singularity

[Remmah2]

24. Hopefully that nuke comes in suppository form. nt

nt

[cleanhippie]

25. Worry less about your nuke and more about your ignorance.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

30. Go buy one.

Good luck with that though. Nobody is obligated to sell you one and they're hellishly expensive.

The whole nuke bullshit is just that - bullshit. Fact is, at the time this nation was founded and the 2nd Amendment was written, private citizens did own the WMDs of their day.

Go on being silly though - gives us something to laugh at.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Nukes, Tanks, and Cannons, oh my!

This is an old canard of the hop lop crowd: "Why can't we own nukes?!?"

The second amendment is largely presumed to refer to small arms appropriate for use by an infantryman. They are weapons that allow the soldier to shoot at a discriminate target. It does not refer to crew-served weaponry such as tanks or artillery. It does not refer to indiscriminate weapons such as biological agents or nuclear weapons.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. I really disagree with that assessment

It is a pretty recent one too.

Do remember, private individuals owned fully armed ships - the WMDs of their day.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. And fielded artillery, too.

But this is not what the second amendment was designed to protect.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Are you certain?

After all, "arms" includes ALL weapons - not merely personal arms.

To believe it was not intended to protect ownership of larger weapons does not quite coincide with the fact that Congress is also authorized to grant letters of marque, which would allow privateers to make war in our name upon other nations. Be kind of silly to make war against other seagoing nations without artillery, would it not?

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Very few such entities.

I doubt very much that the 2A was primarily about cannons and privateers.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. Did not say it was primarily about that.

To deny that it protects them though is revisionist.

Arms are arms. Simple as that. Be it a sharp or heavy stick or a strategic nuke.

[jeepnstein]

45. You have a good point.

The founder of the little community I live in was a "Colonel" in the militia. He had that rank because he owned a battery of seven French cannons. They were his private property and he fielded them with the support of the local militia. Those guns traveled from Ohio to New Orleans and back in support of Andrew Jackson. The four remaining ones sit in a park in the center of town. Almost every historical reference to this guy includes some kind of information about using a cannon on something. He was apparently quite fond of shooting them.

A modern artillery piece would be a destructive device and would be covered under the NFA. Each round of ammo would also be NFA material since they carry a high explosive charge. The cost of ownership would be prohibitive. You can own one, though. Good luck finding a place to shoot it.

Other stuff like nukes are even more regulated by treaties that bind the U.S. While you might think you can own one under the 2nd Amendment you would probably be the focal point of quite a bit of international scrutiny if you got your hands on one. I seriously doubt the Treasury Department could even approve the tax stamp for you to legally acquire said destructive device. So your wanting to own one is foolish.

[oneshooter]

53. You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvncpT4EVzQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dSdnxxrjGQ


Are tanks included?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU8HGs_GrRw&feature=related

[SteveM]

39. "The old Lab rolled over, farted, and went to sleep...."

[Straw Man]

41. I don't want a nuke.

It's not a very good personal defense weapon, being indiscriminate and all. But if you really think you should be able to own one, I suggest you go forth and found the NPNA (National Personal Nukes Association) and then get busy promoting your own interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Let us know how it's working out.

[gejohnston]

42. at the risk of being nit-picky,

it is the second that protects the right to bare arms,
the fourth protects your right not to have bare arms or legs,
nature gave bears the right to be armed

[ileus]

47. Talk about being rude in public...strap on a nuke or two and going out in public.

[DissedByBush]

56. Plenty of common law to define "arms"

That you would even write this shows absolute ignorance regarding the Second Amendment.