[JediJones]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

Hmm, now someone's against O'Reilly because they're pro-lawyer and anti-protecting our borders. There's a site called DU you might find more to your liking.

[Bogey78O]

You missed the point. At the time of the ratification there was no concept that thre ought to be a limit on what a person can defend themselves with. The anti-gun nuts keep making a specious argument to win an argument they have no hope of winning logically.

[Morgan's Raider]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

No need in engaging in hyperbole here. OK, another example. During the thirty years of so following the War of Northern Aggression, the standard issue long gun of the U.S. Army was the single shot trapdoor Springfield. However, civilians could readily go down the the Sundry and Dry-good store and buy a Winchester lever action repeating rifle or the powerful Sharps buffalo rifle, either of which was greater firepower that the standard soldier had. This wasn't a problem 130 years ago, and it shouldn't be a problem now.

The gun-grabbing left-wing maggots aren't pushing their agenda for public safety; they are pushing it because they know 80 million armed citizens are the main thing keeping them from enacting their Marxist policies.

[Woahhs]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

Just for the record, because no doubt you've had this distinction pointed out before and chosen to ignore it, "arms" are not weapons of mass destruction. The definition of arms was well understood at the founding. That the term "arms" has been arbitrarily co-opted to also denote WMDs does not mean you get the right to them also. Private ownership of WMDs would be the functional equivalent of a private army...the only WMD known at the time...and that is not protected.

Your argument turns on the most simplistic of logical fallacies: the alternative definition of words.

[Shooter 2.5]

Are you saying the authorities have the Right to ban libraries because of snuff films?

We aren't talking about nukes. We are discussing the semiautomatic versions of the country's service rifle. Those rifles are used in competitions all over the country. They are why the Second Amendment was created.

[solitas]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has?

Hey - don't knock 'em 'til you've tried 'em. :)

[El Gato]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

They are arms within the meaning of the second amendment. Just as cannon armed warships were when it was ratified. If "alot has changed" since "those days", the constitution allows for it's amendedment. It does not allow that simply be ignored, or "re-interpreted" by folks in black robes, or in pin-stripped suits either.

Captain, USAFR (ret)