To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
No, and neither would extremely powerful bombs IE Nukes. These are weapons that harm innocent people and make an area uninhabitable for many years. They have permanent, long term and far range effect.
To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
Great!
Think I'll buy me a tank.
Neighbors dog barks at night, instead of shooting my gun to say, "shut up" I'll blow up the neighbors house.
I am a proud "red hat."
Reason be damned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
The 2A was written to protect the militia, and later SCOTUS decisions held that militia weapons are the arms protected.To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
The 2A was written to protect the militia, and later SCOTUS decisions held that militia weapons are the arms protected.
ICBMs and such are not militia weapons and thus are not protected.
Tanks are just tracked vehicles with a weight class, like a bulldozer, and are perfectly legal. It's the cannon that'll give you legal problems.Carry, or in this instance, ride in. I don't know anyone who can pick up a tank.
McDonald, Heller, and others.What ruling was this?
Would weaponized smallpox virus count as "arms" ?
To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.
No, and neither would extremely powerful bombs IE Nukes. These are weapons that harm innocent people and make an area uninhabitable for many years. They have permanent, long term and far range effect.
To bear means to carry, just clearing up that point.
A virus is a living organism, it is not protected by the second amendment. Nuclear fallout is a toxic material, not a weapon.
Carry, or in this instance, ride in. I don't know anyone who can pick up a tank.
So now you've decided that 'bear' also means 'to ride in?'
Lead is pretty toxic. And radioactive fallout is indeed a big component of nuclear weapons. So....how much more did you want to move your goalposts?
Lead in of itself is not a weapon. And radioactive fallout is an aftereffect of a nuclear blast, not a part of the bomb itself. However given the impossiblity of creating a nuclear weapon that doesn't create follout, it would be banned as it's a serious threat to the surrounding population.
Yes.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?