Subject: Yes, 2nd amendment protects nukesPeople often ask, "well, if the second amendment to the US Constitution protects the private ownership of arms, then does that mean you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?"
Most respondents approach this issue with something to the effect that this can be resolved by interpreting "arms" as meaning "personal arms" (i.e. those which can be carried and used by an individual against another individual). Others "resolve" it by saying that this issue "obviously" shows that the Constitution must be allowed to be re-interpreted to accord with "common sense".
However, I think this misses the point. First, the writings of the people who wrote and ratified the second amendment give the clear impression that they meant *all* arms, including cannon and privateer ships. Second, it's as wrong to "creatively interpret" the second amendment in order to say that these days it should apply only to personal arms as it is to say that it now applies only to the National Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and can be totally ignored. Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the first amendment protection of free speech only to, say, distribution methods reaching only a limited number of people.
In short, I think the proper approach is to say that yes, the second amendment was written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are indeed covered by it. Now before anyone has a heart attack, let me point out that I, too, think it is a good idea that individuals not own nuclear weapons.
So what's the solution? Why, to follow the procedure that the Constitution itself provides for modifying a provision of the Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it following the procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the constitution did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit changing conditions. They planned that if conditions *did* change enough to warrant an alteration in the provisions of the Constitution, it should be done with due care and consideration, and only upon the agreement of two thirds of each house of congress, and three fourths of the legislatures of the states.
If times have indeed significantly changed since the day the second amendment was ratified to protect the right to keep and bear all arms, then it should be a simple matter to get the congress and the states to agree upon the issue of which weapons are too dangerous for individual ownership, and an amendment listing those arms exempted from the protections of the second amendment should be ratified.
*This* is the proper way to react to changing times -- not arbitrary decisions, whether they be personal, legislative, executive, or judicial.
The second amendment protects all arms. If you don't like that, try to amend it. For some arms, it will be easy to get the majority opinion required to ratify that exemption, and you will then have the blessing of the Constitution itself. For other arms, you might find it more difficult to acquire a consensus, and you'll have to live with the fact that not enough people agree with you.