No, I am not ignorant.
The language of the 2nd amendment says "The right to keep and bear ARMS". It is NOT limited, by its language, to handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Weapons of mass destruction are ARMS.
So are fully-automatic heavy machine guns.
If one is going to take a literalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - which some here HAVE (read up the thread, please, to the person who would not allow that the Secret Service can disarm people even around the President) - then the problem is right there, in plain English.
There is no LIMIT on the word "ARMS" in the 2nd Amendment.
So, either the words "right", "well-regulated", "security", "free state" and "infringed" all act to impose rational limits on the right to keep and bear arms, or it is absolutely unlimited.
There are those who read it as absolutely unlimited. They even appear here. Calling it a "straw man" in order to ignore the problem, and it IS a real problem (just LOOK, people really ARE arguing that the 2nd Amendment means NO LIMITS on armaments), does not address the issue.
So, why don't you tell me: is the 2nd Amendment limited by common sense or isn't it? You called it a straw man and said nobody is saying that, so it should be a real easy question to answer. Is there a constitutional right to have a nuclear weapon, YES OR NO?
Is there a constitutional right to have a fully-automatic machine gun, YES OR NO?
If you can answer "No" to both of those questions, then we're in the realm of sanity. But if you CAN'T, or WON'T, then you will have demonstrated that my bringing up the full natural meaning of the word "ARMS" was no straw man. Every right is of necessity limited by other rights and obligations, and responsibilities.
So make it easy: tell me that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT mean that there is any personal right to have either nuclear weapons or fully-automatic weapons, mass-casualty weapons, and we can proceed.
That's the FIRST test, the litmus test of sanity.
Can you answer it without blinking, or are YOU going to shuck and jive and call me names again, but refuse to answer the direct question? They are yes or no questions.
Personal nukes? Yes or no. (NO is the right answer.)
Machine guns? Yes or no. (NO is the right answer.)
Once we get past those two "No's", we've admitted that the 2nd Amendment IS a limited right. "Arms" does not mean ALL arms. Some arms can be infringed, are infringed, have to be infringed, and it's perfectly constitutional to infringe them.
Can you admit that, or are you going to call me names again to avoid the question?
Care to post a few credible citations (regarding "people really ARE arguing that the 2nd Amendment means NO LIMITS on armaments")?
I'm willing to be convinced - please help me out...
The fact is that under our Constitutional form of gov't your neighbor can indeed have a lab in his basement ~capable~ of working with anthrax; --- just as he can own the materials to make a fertilizer bomb in his U-Haul. He has that freedom -- "so long as he doesn't bother anybody".
The 2nd Amendment has to mean GUNS, not mass casualty weapons.
The 2nd means we all have the freedom to own property that can be used for armaments. -- Fertilizer, fuel, dead/diseased animals, -- even nuclear materials, -- can & are owned by free men.
And then the question is merely one of how much safety regulation or registration one is going to require - or not require - concerning personal ownership of guns.
The real question has always been one of how much safety regulation or registration one is going to require - or not require - concerning personal ownership of 'dangerous' property. -- And history shows us that prohibitions do not work.
My opinion is that gun possession is clearly a federal right, spelled out in the Second Amendment.
It's clearly a individual, inalienable constitutional right, - like our rights to life, liberty, or property, -- and can only limited by due process of law [no prohibitive infringements].
Like any other right, it is broad, but naturally limited. An unlimited right would mean that convicted felons could have guns.
Non-violent ex-felons should have such rights restored.
It would mean that the Secret Service couldn't infringe people's gun rights when the President was around.
They can't now, constitutionally speaking.
And it would mean that people could individually possess WMD. That's all nutty.
It's 'nutty' to claim that we can have a free republic that can prohibit any type of property dangerous enough to be made into a 'mass casualty weapon'. -- 9/11 taught us that lesson.
--- tell me that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT mean that there is any personal right to have either nuclear weapons or fully-automatic weapons, mass-casualty weapons, and we can proceed. That's the FIRST test, the litmus test of sanity.
Comparing nuclear materials with machine guns is hardly a test of sanity.
Personal nukes? Yes or no. (NO is the right answer.)
Many 'persons' in our country possess nuclear materials, and the ability to make it into weapons. No one [to date] has been insane enough to do so.
Machine guns? Yes or no. (NO is the right answer.)
Millions of 'persons' in our country possess the materials, and the ability, to make machine guns. Not many [to date] have been insane enough to do so, and use them as "mass-casualty weapons".
Once we get past those two "No's", we've admitted that the 2nd Amendment IS a limited right.
No one here is arguing for an unlimited 'anarchy of arms'. We argue for a right to own and carry arms, -- without infringements.
"Arms" does not mean ALL arms. Some arms can be infringed, are infringed, have to be infringed, and it's perfectly constitutional to infringe them.
Prohibitions on arms are infringements. Constitutional due process must be used in the writing & enforcing of restraints on that liberty.
Justice Harlan recognized:
"--- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints ---"
But don't ignore it. Someone else might decide to ignore some other part of the Bill of Rights that you do approve of.
What do you people have against machine guns??? They were produced and sold FREELY from 1888 thru 1934, and then under Fed.Gov restrictions until 1986....they have NEVER been a problem! The only reason new ones were outlawed in 1986 is because Tip O'Neal fraudently declared that he'd won a voice vote that he actually lost.,....just LISTEN to the audio tapes of it!