capego
Member
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
capego.icu
- "a free State" = not a tyranny
- "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
- "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
capego.icu