4 ms·
2A as written doesn't just cover firearms. It covers 'arms.' Like nukes and cruise missiles. The fact that one may need these to overthrow tyranny is also a
by notch656a 4y ago
2A as written doesn't just cover firearms. It covers 'arms.' Like nukes and cruise missiles. The fact that one may need these to overthrow tyranny is also a strong argument to the literal interpretation.
>When those break down whoever has the most cash to buy the most heavy weapons, usually the government, wins.
There is more wealth in private hands in the US than government hands.
- rocket_surgeron 4y agoThere is no reasonable person who would think that a private citizen should be permitted to store plutonium in their home.
- unbalancedevh 4y ago> 2A as written doesn't just cover firearms. It covers 'arms.' Like nukes and cruise missiles. That's a matter of interpretation, especially since weapons like those didn't exist when the 2A was written. What really matters isn't what rights people who lived 200+ years ago thought that we should have today; it's what rights we, who are alive now, think we should have. We shouldn't accept the meaning, or even the existence, of the 2nd amendment simply because it's there. We should continually be scrutinizing and improving the entire document.
- notch656a 4y agoI agree 100%, which is if we now don't want 'arms' to be protected generally, the constitution should be amended to exclude nukes or whatever. Not just make shit up on the fly and say 'well it says arms but nah, we'll just ignore that because if it sounds absurd I can just re-interpret it at will'
- int_19h 4y agoFWIW, while I'm not aware of any court decision that would specifically claim 2A protection, things like grenade launchers, mortars, artillery, and even tanks with active main gun is all legal in US. It's just more paperwork than your usual stuff, and it has to go through the feds - but they can't just say "no".