[ari-freedom]

if the 2nd amendment clearly and unambiguously gave everyone the right to own a suitcase nuke then it would be amended.

I don’t see the right to bear arms as a potential checkmate against the government. I see “being necessary to the security of a free State” as the factor.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist #29
“The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

Now, are suitcase nukes in the hands of immigrant muslims necessary to the security of a free state? No, it would lead to insecurity.

[William Tell]

ari-freedom said: "Now, are suitcase nukes in the hands of immigrant muslims necessary to the security of a free state? "

And if, by chance, some foreign power, whether the Japanese, Chinese, Muslims, or Russians, invade and conquer the US, are suitcase nukes in the hands of the militia necessary to the security of a free state?

If arms in the hands of the government are sufficient, then there need be no arms available to the people. YOU, PERSONALLY, have a right to keep and bear ANY arms necessary to secure our free state. Your enemies, whether foreign or domestic, WILL USE all arms available to them to defeat you.

[William Tell]

ari-freedom said: "if the 2nd amendment clearly and unambiguously gave everyone the right to own a suitcase nuke then it would be amended."

Do you then claim that the Second Amendment was unclear and ambiguous to our Founders? If not, what did it mean? Does it mean something different now? If so, in what year did it change?