I’m not saying I disagree with you, but I want to test your commitment. For the purposes of this test, you can’t alter the hypothetical.
Let’s create Joe. Joe is a sociopath. He’s vile and evil. Think Stalin/Obama/Hillary all in one l. Joe is not a felon but he’s short tempered, violent and believes that killing 99% of humanity would be a good thing.
Joe works in his garage and due to blind luck stumbles upon anti-matter which will allow him to create a super weapon that will simultaneously protect him from all known weapons and will allow him to kill 99% of the rest of humanity with the push of a button.
Does the 2nd Amendment protect that weapon?
reductio ad absurdum
Do better next time.
My answer to your ridiculous hypothetical is that the Constitution itself contemplated Americans having fully armed WARSHIPS. See Letters of Marque in Article 1, Section 8.
Personally, I would draw the line at WMDs, but the Constitution does not say any such thing.
The issue isn’t that he can create the weapon. The issue is his intent. If you know that his intent is to kill others then the 2nd A doesn’t apply. In affect, his intent would be the overthrow of a Constitutional government.
What a silly hypothetical question.
I will not quit the Second Amendment over a hypothetical anti-matter weapon. One can always come up with some hypothetical to justify tyranny -- "Hey, Hitler was right to try and kill all the Jews, because just imagine this situation ..."
Nope. I won't go there. I reject genocide, and I reject people who think the Second Amendment ought to contain a whole bunch of loopholes. I am an absolutist.
Yes, the law requiring a special license and more extensive background check for owning fully automatic firearms is a measure for regulating a higher level of competence in owners of such firearms.
Without the repeated pushes for bans against semi-automatic, modern sporting rifles by the more privileged among urban and suburb dwellers and by frustrated exes, there would be no backlash rising in favor of deregulating the ownership of fully automatic firearms. There are well over 20 million modern sporting rifles “in common use” now, and such rifles account for an extremely small number of murders committed by firearms.
With populism certainly on the rise and talk of stacking the Supremes, though, deregulation fully automatic firearms in the very near future is a likelihood. It’s a “make my day” moment in politics.
Neighbors in my part of the country are very conscientious about where they point their firearms while practicing and hunting. The sound of firearms doesn’t bother anyone here. Can’t say the same about many of the folks in blue doper states, but I don’t see a downside to that, either.
And speaking of dope, it would seem more logical to go after drug abuse in blue doper states instead of outlawing self-defense while legalizing dope.