Replies

You missed my point. If you continue to interpret the amendment that way in modern times, that means the ordinary citizen should be able to go to the corner store and buy a nuclear bomb. Clearly interpreting the amendment that broadly with the modern weapons we have now would be chaotic. You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.

let us take your argument against citizens being able to purchase(manufacture) nukes... the second amendment guarantees individuals protection against a tyrranical gov't. if that government is threatening to use nukes to annihilate an anti-government faction based in say montana, and the good people around it, i am all for the montana group acquiring the same means to destroy the government faction that would do something like this, if only for the mutual deterrent it provides... ie. the cold war... a government with nukes, and the desire to use them against its citizens is a government worth nuking... of course, our government is supposed to be us, the people. so in essence, everyone owns a piece of the nuke pie... the only problem with nukes is the massive destruction in terms of being a defensive weapon alternative. therefore, if you are limiting stronger less destructive means to prevent a nuclear tyrant from oppressing americans, such as fully automatic weapons of deterrance, then you should ban them from government as well... a slippery slope that can lead to extinction no doubt... but by not banning state of the art defensive weaponry, the tyrants of the nuclear age can and will be kept at ay from using wmd upon americans... i hope i made my point clear, some will see me as a proponent of nuclear proliferation, but i am merely being consistant in my belief that every option must be kept available to americans in the intent of the second amendment. thanks for the opportunity to express my first amendment right... teeman