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

To: mvpel

No. I don’t believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to criminalize possession of nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms can be reasonably interpreted to apply to typical militia-style weapons that an individual soldier might carrier, not extending to tanks, howitzers, and nuclear bombs. If the SCOTUS actually ruled individuals had the right to possess chemical weapons, MOABs, etc., there WOULD be an amendment in short order...to ban said weapons.


90 posted on 09/09/2009 7:27:54 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: CitizenUSA

If possession of a warship can legitimately be criminalized, then what would be the point of the Constitution authorizing Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal?

The “crew-served” exemption offered by those squeamish about the Second Amendment doesn’t square with “shall not be infringed.”

As for privately-owned tanks: http://www.milvehtechfound.com/


91 posted on 09/09/2009 7:32:00 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | 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