Originally Posted by oldandslow
Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...
Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.
Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."
I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?
So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?
Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?
I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."
The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't really understand why the ardent 2nd Am defenders AREN'T arguing a right to "tanks, bazookas, tomahawk missles, or nukes" as the OP said.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
" is what they quote.
And especially those who say the whole purpose of the 2nd Am is to defend against tyrannical govt--If that is the main purpose, shouldn't you have a right to the same weapons as the govt/military?
Why is no one arguing about the right to shoulder-mounted rocket launchers?
And if you're not, aren't you admitting that heavy restrictions on available arms are legal and acceptable?