[tpaine]

You can make a pretty good argument that an *atom bomb* is not a *weapon* per se but a form of ammunition, some types of which can indeed be limited by treaty or law as inappropriate for militia usage.
Militia units and individuals might thereby have the means to deliver such ammunition, via aircraft, missile or some light artillery launchers, but their ammunition therefor would be limited to conventional warheads, unless some very drastic circumstances required otherwise.

Well put. -- I think we all can agree that C-N-B weapons should be reasonably regulated.
-- In fact as you indicated, some types of small arms ammunition have even been limited in the past by treaty or law as inappropriate for military usage. But seeing that those days seem to be gone, 'we the unorganized militia' should not be limited by rules that no longer apply to gov't troops.

[archy]

In fact as you indicated, some types of small arms ammunition have even been limited in the past by treaty or law as inappropriate for military usage. But seeing that those days seem to be gone, 'we the unorganized militia' should not be limited by rules that no longer apply to gov't troops.

Just so. And of course, turn about is fair play.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Well put. -- I think we all can agree that C-N-B weapons should be reasonably regulated.

One thing to remember in all of this is that not all rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed absolutely. Most famously, perhaps, is that freedom of speech is in no way absolute---one cannot incite a riot by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, of course.