Replies

One can reasonably conjecture that if they were interested in including indisriminate weapons, that the Second Amendment would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to keep and spread Contagious Diseases, shall not be infringed.

Do you think we can fairly attribute to those who were involved in the adoption of the Second Amendment an intent regarding a distinction between discriminatory and indiscriminate weapons without any clear evidence that any of them ever even thought about the distinction?

To expect them to think about the absurd assertion that biological agent possession and use being a protected right is silly, of course. These sort of thoughts are dismissed out-of-hand in any sane persons mind.

So the only test that they intended indiscriminate weapons to be included would be the clause in the second amendment that specifically protected the right of the people to keep and spread contagious diseases -- which, as I have pointed out, is the only indiscriminate WMD available to the founders at that time.

Absent that clause, I reasonably assume they had no intent to INCLUDE the possession and use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.