Your position is an extreme, therefore you are extremist, this is simply a fact, very few people believe the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear n

Your position is an extreme, therefore you are extremist, this is simply a fact, very few people believe the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear nuclear arms. I am sorry if using the word extremist correctly hurts your feelings. >You might be the first person in history who simultaneously wants restrictions on nukes but thinks it's just too much work to solidify the framework banning them from people you don't want to have them. The framework is already solidified under 18 U.S. Code § 831 and 832 there is no need to waste time trying to get an amendment passed. There are many more statutes than amendments to handle more specific issues such as this. The point of having statutes is so that a the constitution need not be amended for every new legal situation. >I don't simply choose to re-interpret what they wrote to convince myself they implicitly did not mean what they said. All amendments must be interpreted, they are far too short and vague to not be. In the case of the second it has been interpreted like all rights spelled out in the constitution, they are not unlimited. This has long historical precedent and the interpretation does change with the times as can be seen with obscenity laws with the first amendment and most recently abortion laws and the fourteenth, right to privacy is not unlimited, even Roe vs Wade made this point. >Of course what's currently considered by most to be "legal" is whatever the supreme court says it is, I'm growing tired and bored of you suggesting any other opinion is a farce. Suggesting that the supreme courts decision is not legal is again an extremist point of view to the point being farcical, you may disagree with the law as it stands, but its currently the law of the land in the legal sense and its the supreme courts job to interpret whether the regulation of arms is constitutional and thus far it has. The vast majority of people seem to agree that arms can be regulated under the second amendment it's just matter of specifics, which is where statutes come in and the debate over the specifics.