[GonzoGOP]

You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbors with them.
Just like your .22LR pistol

OK lest work out that logic. In an armed populace there is a fairly tight limit on the damage one deranged guy can do with a .22LR. Heck give him an AK-47 and some spare mags. Still with an armed populace he gets off one burst and is then cut to ribbons by return fire from the people around him.

That doesn't work with a chemical, radiological or especially a bioweapon you don't even know he used it until million are dead. And then there is no good way to track it back to where it came from.

When people think of weapons they tend to think of firearms. Firearms are self correcting in an armed populace. But the right to bear arms as a generic statement is not limited to firearms. Exotic, area effect weapons who's use is not immediately apparent are a situation of a non self regulating issue. If the unlimited right to bear arms is a universal human right then when Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke you have to let him keep it. You can retaliate, but there is no defense. You must always accept the first strike.

[ArrogantBustard]

Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke he is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.

[Noumenon]

So, what you’re getting at is that I have no right to own and operate a 40MM Bofors auto cannon?