5 ms·

>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

• jessaustin 7y ago
  You're certainly more notable than homonculus2!
• Coffeewine 7y ago
  Just 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 ago
    The 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.