Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

The words of the 2nd Amendment are "the right … to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says 'arms', i.e. weapons, and not specifically 'guns'. Do you support personal ownership of grenades? Grenade launchers? Surface-to-air missiles? Ballistic missiles? MOABs ( )? Phosphorus weapons? Nuclear weapons? How about chemical weapons? Biological weapons? All those would be extremely useful to allow regular citizens to defeat an oppressive government.

My brother used to do quarry blasting for work. He would routinely drive around a truck with the trailer full of material with a total of ten times the explosive power of the Oklahoma City bombing. That's a form of 'arms', it would be very handy to prevent a military occupation of an area. Should any citizen be able to buy that kind of explosives without any permit or oversight?

(Edit: To be crystal clear, the US government and all of the citizens already interpret 'arms'. We don't allow unrestricted access to anything that can kill people. So the question has been where to draw the line. It's absurd to argue that no line exists, and everyone should be able to buy anything they want.)