6 ms·
That's an interesting argument, but only the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment argues that it covers _all_ munitions. And I'm having trouble find
by the_watcher 7y ago
That's an interesting argument, but only the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment argues that it covers _all_ munitions. And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.
On top of that, we now have years of SCOTUS jurisprudence that "arms" are absolutely subject to _some_ regulations, with the debate focusing on what "some" actually means.
- homonculus1 7y ago>And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim. Maybe you were looking for someone notable, but I'll make it for you right now.
- jessaustin 7y agoYou're certainly more notable than homonculus2!
- Coffeewine 7y agoJust out of curiosity, does that extend to things like chemical or biological weapons? I suppose such an interpretation would have the side effect of making literally any hazardous substance legal to possess.
- homonculus1 7y agoThe definition of "arms" can reasonably be limited to conventional arms, i.e. the weapon is controlled by a human and its damage can be targeted. Weapons of mass destruction and contagion are not compatible with the purposes of self-defense, defense of the nation, and protecting society against tyranny.