So:
A. Freedom is either 100% or 0%, there is no in between, (which, BTW, was exactly what the founders were fighting for, a balance between totalitarianism and anarchy, a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community) thus
B. Private citizens should be able to own an atomic bomb. If one accidentally takes out San Diego, oops. Bummer.
You really ought to try reading, say, the Federalist Papers, or one of the many books about the Constitutional Convention. If you think the founders were extremist libertarians, you've got another thing coming.
Law-abiding citizens would never have the need to own personal nukes or anti-aircraft rockets. Which means that all your previous posts were red herrings.
I have read the Federalist Papers and a lot more. We are not talking about nuclear arms... we are talking about antipersonnel armaments that are suitable to take down a government without making the territory uninhabitable.
Your attempt to carry the discussion to absurd levels does not address the issue. An individual citizen cannot operate a battleship or service and maintain a jet fighter by himself... but a well regulated militia of many citizens could. The individuals who comprise that militia would be responsible for owning and maintaining their own private arms... military arms... and jointly owning and maintaining the larger weaponry.
If you believe that, you're just a nut
a kid who just turned 18, or an emotionally unbalanced man with a death wish
I think you are naive.
and nobody but a insane fanatic would ever think they did
Me thinks thou dost protesteth too much.
So:
Freedom is either 100% or 0%, there is no in between,
Wrong. The "in between" is our Constitution, as written.
(which, BTW, was exactly what the founders were fighting for, a balance between totalitarianism and anarchy, a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community)
Wrong. Communities have no rights, they are delegated powers by our State Constitutions, which are subject to, and must support our Law of the Land, the US Constitution. [see Art. VI]
You really ought to try reading, say, the Federalist Papers, or one of the many books about the Constitutional Convention.
Most of us have, -- and very few have imagined they have found any "community rights" enumerated in those documents.
If you think the founders were extremist libertarians, you've got another thing coming.
If you think the founders were even mild communitarians, you've got another thing coming.
Is there any evidence that the Second Amendment was not meant, at the time of its passage, to allow private citizens to own any and all forms of weaponry available to the military?
If not, then that's what the Second Amendment has always meant.
If you believe that changing circumstances make such a rule obsolete, the proper procedure is to amend the Constitution. The only reason you cite for refusing to do so is a claim that the Second Amendment was not meant to mean what it apparently says. So I must ask again what evidence you have to suggest that the Second Amendment was not meant to apply (among other things) to any and all forms of military weaponry.
Oooooooh the atomic bomb issue......that's a really valid point ya make there.......