The US Constitution also says nothing about needing a government agency's permission to have a quiet gun or one that shoots fast... or one with a short barrel but a different shaped stock....... but here we are. Bullshit creeps in over time, and becomes accepted and "legally" enforced.
Note that I'm not sure if that applies here or not, (mainly just bitching about the ATF infringement.)
My reading of the constitution is similar to yours. I think they intended us to buy anything the government can buy. Including tanks, nukes, artillery, anything we’d need to form a militia capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government.
I'm guessing that had the Founders envisioned a device like a nuclear weapon, they would have explicitly excluded that from the definition of "arms". It's possible they would have banned the government from having them too. It would be horrifying to them.
Maybe. But if that’s the case, horrifying weapons of war already existed back then and were not excluded.
I’m not loving the thought of millions of hicks like me with nukes, of course. But a “well regulated militia”? Why not? If that’s what it takes to overthrow a tyrannical government, so be it.
I get your point and agree with the concept, and obviously if a war erupts between the people and it's government all bets are off and what is legal no longer has meaning. But nuclear weapons are in a class of their own. They are strategic weapons employed not against governments but against nations. I cannot see any use for them in a revolution.
"Arms" are actually well defined in their era. Something one man can carry and operate. Designed to hit one target, usually human rather than materiel. Differentiated from artillery. And yet, certain Congressmen had cannons on their porch, and fired them in anger. Ship owners had cannons, which they needed against pirates and proved quite useful as a mercenary US navy.
I'd be cool with sticking with this definition. It brings up the question of TOW / RPG and such; drawing the line of some of that rather than select fire should be the furthest we even consider comprising on without stacking bodies.
I think all weapons should be allowed, with the exception of strategic destructive weapons, which have no role to play in a revolution and are explicitly the domain of standing armies and used only in major global wars anyways.
Things like artillery and armor and fighter aircraft and the like should be available to the People, but specifically to militias. Basically to prevent a nut from getting their hands on a massively destructive piece of military hardware and murdering hundreds of people before an equally armed force can stop them.
Small arms however should have ZERO limitations. I am quite sure small arms is precisely what the Founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment.
The US Constitution also says nothing about needing a government agency's permission to have a quiet gun or one that shoots fast... or one with a short barrel but a different shaped stock....... but here we are. Bullshit creeps in over time, and becomes accepted and "legally" enforced.
Note that I'm not sure if that applies here or not, (mainly just bitching about the ATF infringement.)
My reading of the constitution is similar to yours. I think they intended us to buy anything the government can buy. Including tanks, nukes, artillery, anything we’d need to form a militia capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government.
I'm guessing that had the Founders envisioned a device like a nuclear weapon, they would have explicitly excluded that from the definition of "arms". It's possible they would have banned the government from having them too. It would be horrifying to them.
Maybe. But if that’s the case, horrifying weapons of war already existed back then and were not excluded.
I’m not loving the thought of millions of hicks like me with nukes, of course. But a “well regulated militia”? Why not? If that’s what it takes to overthrow a tyrannical government, so be it.
I get your point and agree with the concept, and obviously if a war erupts between the people and it's government all bets are off and what is legal no longer has meaning. But nuclear weapons are in a class of their own. They are strategic weapons employed not against governments but against nations. I cannot see any use for them in a revolution.
"Arms" are actually well defined in their era. Something one man can carry and operate. Designed to hit one target, usually human rather than materiel. Differentiated from artillery. And yet, certain Congressmen had cannons on their porch, and fired them in anger. Ship owners had cannons, which they needed against pirates and proved quite useful as a mercenary US navy.
I'd be cool with sticking with this definition. It brings up the question of TOW / RPG and such; drawing the line of some of that rather than select fire should be the furthest we even consider comprising on without stacking bodies.
I think all weapons should be allowed, with the exception of strategic destructive weapons, which have no role to play in a revolution and are explicitly the domain of standing armies and used only in major global wars anyways.
Things like artillery and armor and fighter aircraft and the like should be available to the People, but specifically to militias. Basically to prevent a nut from getting their hands on a massively destructive piece of military hardware and murdering hundreds of people before an equally armed force can stop them.
Small arms however should have ZERO limitations. I am quite sure small arms is precisely what the Founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment.