4 ms·
'Arms', in the general sense, is up to and including nukes though.
by cuboidGoat 8y ago
'Arms', in the general sense, is up to and including nukes though.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 8y agoMaybe. The Constitution protects the right of "people" to "keep and bear" (i.e. keep and carry) "arms." There is at least a textual basis for interpreting "arms" to exclude weapons (like nukes and attack aircraft) that are not ordinarily carried by individuals. But note, at the time of the founding, it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own armed warships. These ships had dozens of cannons that could fire over a mile (thus sieging a city). Canons moreover could fire grapeshot, causing massive casualties to groups of people. These weapons were far more destructive than an AR-15.
- cuboidGoat 8y agoThere are backpack nukes specifically designed for individuals to carry, like the B-54. If your legal cutoff was 'designed for a single person to carry', they would be included as legal.
- rayiner 8y agoThen maybe backpack nukes are protected by the Second Amendment? The Constitution says what it says--"we don't like the result" is a reason to amend it, not ignore it. In any event, whether or not backpack nukes are "arms," AR-15's clearly are within the category denoted by the word "arms."
- cuboidGoat 8y agoCan't really fault you on any of that. Also, I do appreciate that I am carping from the sidelines here as I am not living in the US, so whatever works for you. My intent is only in passing commentary, not in trying to tell people what to do. It just looks a bit risky from the outside, is all.