Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
The 2nd does not say "firearms" It says "arms" which means "weapons" Tanks, nukes, MOABs, and ICBMs are all weapons. Therefore if one is to interpret the 2nd as you want us to, I should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
|
I agree, as stated above. Certain regulations are appropriate for each of these, and for all should include assurances that the existance of these arms not pose danger to others. So if you want to have a nuclear weapon, you should be required to create and maintain the full infrastructure for the safe strage and maintenance of such an item. I think that is pretty well out of reach for a citizen, so the idea is purely theoretical.
It's a lot more reasonable to talk about tanks and other 'heavy weapons'. I know that it is legal in some places to own such things, fully operational. There's a club in Arizona, for example, that operate half-tracks with anti-tank guns and do shoots in the desert and such. All highly regulated by state laws, but still permitted.