Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
When the 2nd refers to 'arms', does it just mean guns or can the definition be broadened to include any weapon? If, for example, some inventor discovers a way to mass produce mini-nukes the size of coffee cans that are powerful enough to exterminate one city block, and sells them for 500 dollars: A) Does he have the 2nd amendment protection to do so? B) Would you knowingly live next door to someone who had bought one?
45 posted on 05/07/2003 9:35:59 PM PDT by plusone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: plusone
Nukes aren't 'arms'. They are destructive devices.
59 posted on 05/07/2003 10:15:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: plusone
When the 2nd refers to 'arms', does it just mean guns or can the definition be broadened to include any weapon?

It includes such objects as could reasonably be used as weapons in the context of a well-functioning militia.

61 posted on 05/07/2003 10:22:23 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: plusone
Because of the radioactive debris left by mini nukes they have been practically regulated out of existence by the EPA. The optional shielding package costs only 10 figures. Further, DOT regulations on shipping make a $500 mini nuke just a little too expensive to ship more than 100 feet... (just kidding).

In all seriousness, arms included swords, pikes, knives, battle axes and hatchets, as well as firearms at the time the 2nd was written. I do not know if they meant to include crew served weapons (cannon), but the folks who could afford such were not likely to be other than responsible members of society, at least on land. Blasting powder (the premier explosive of the day)was not regulated, as it was only a different grind of the powder used in the firearms).

At sea, some unsavory types seized entire vessels with cannon, but that is another story, and they flew a different flag (skull and bones.)

While arms are certainly more sophisticated today, the basic thought prevails. A wise, honorable, and noble person will use arms in a wise fashion, even without laws. Criminals will not pay attention to any law.

If there were no criminals, no predators, the rest would not need arms to defend themselves, but that genie will not be put back in the bottle in the world as we know it.

Would I knowingly live next door to someone who had a mini-nuke? If they bought the optional shielding package, but remember, that here in North Dakota, "next door" is often a mile or two away...

66 posted on 05/07/2003 10:30:11 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: plusone
No idiotic and illegal legislation is going to prevent someone who's motivated from having whatever arms they can get their hands on. Your best bet is the boy scout motto... "be prepared". Please note the word "security" in the Second Amendment. A well armed and trained (well-regulated) militia (population) is your best security.
87 posted on 05/08/2003 12:56:41 AM PDT by TERMINATTOR (Don't tread on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson