What weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment? (1 Viewer)

[M14 Shooter]

No, if the founders intended the people to be able to have M-1 battle tanks, they wouldn't have put in anything about a militia.

Tanks are just armored tractors. Anyone can have them.

Given that your interpretation ignores half the clause, your argument is without merit.

It doesnt - I already explained that part of the amendment.
The founders preserved the ability of the people to form militia by protecting the right of the inidivual to keep and bear arms.

You, on the other hand, have not yet explained why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

Please, cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

Then explain how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It's a tried and true cliche.

Agreed. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

"Derrr... oh.. well I had a gun so I figured I'd shoot somebody."

"Derrr.... oh... well I had a nuke so I figured I'd vaporize Manhattan"

I mean humans can be stupid but not that friggin' stupid. Usually it is an emotional or psychological matter which causes such desperate grief... I don't see how anyone could objectively blame the gun.

Can't blame the A-Bomb either. :lol:




In all seriousness though, I feel the 2nd amendment is very open to interpretation, especially in our day and age. I think the line should be drawn at automatic weapons because I think they would do more harm than good if allowed into mainstream society. In 99%+ of home invasion cases, an automatic weapon is absolutely unnecessary to defend yourself and your family.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In all seriousness though, I feel the 2nd amendment is very open to interpretation, especially in our day and age. I think the line should be drawn at automatic weapons because I think they would do more harm than good if allowed into mainstream society. In 99%+ of home invasion cases, an automatic weapon is absolutely unnecessary to defend yourself and your family.

If the 2nd is intended to protect the right to own weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the standing army, how can automatic weapons be excluded from the protection of the right?

 

[Iriemon]

If the 2nd is intended to protect the right to own weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the standing army, how can automatic weapons be excluded from the protection of the right?

Exactly right. If that the Second amdment means private citizens have an absolute right to own weapons of warfare, your conclusion is logical. It is the premise upon which the conclusion is based that is wrong.

Where does the word "own" appear in the clause? I see: right to "keep and bear" -- pursuant to a "well regulated" militia. What is "well regulated" about an individual independently owning weapons of war?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Exactly right. If that the Second amdment means private citizens have an absolute right to own weapons of warfare, your conclusion is logical. It is the premise upon which the conclusion is based that is wrong.

It's not "absolute", it's open to interpretation as society changes over time. If it were absolute, we'd still have slavery among other things. The founding fathers never intended it to be etched in stone.

Where does the word "own" appear in the clause? I see: right to "keep and bear" -- pursuant to a "well regulated" militia. What is "well regulated" about an individual independently owning weapons of war?

What's the difference between keeping and owning? And the "well regulated militia" line is separte from the line "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They're two different sentences, please don't try to mesh them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the word "own" appear in the clause? I see: right to "keep and bear" -- pursuant to a "well regulated" militia. What is "well regulated" about an individual independently owning weapons of war?

What does "keep and bear" mean, if not "own and use"?

"Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "the people".
The right to arms belongs to "The people", not "The militia".

Explain why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

Please, cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

Then explain how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

 

[Iriemon]

It's not "absolute", it's open to interpretation as society changes over time. If it were absolute, we'd still have slavery among other things. The founding fathers never intended it to be etched in stone.

What's the difference between keeping and owning? And the "well regulated militia" line is separte from the line "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They're two different sentences, please don't try to mesh them.

Someone serving in a "well regulated" infantry type organization, such as the National Guard, may have the right to keep and bear weapons of war but not own them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

They are not two separate sentences -- and obviously the part about a "well regulated" millitia is part of the clause describing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The only logical way to read it, IMO, without just assuming they put half the clause in there for no reason whatsoever, is that the the right to keep and bear arms exists pursuant to a "well regulated" militia.

Maybe there is an argument that we should be able to establish well-regulated militias and then keep and bear SAMs as part of the militia, that is a different issues.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Someone serving in a "well regulated" infantry type organization, such as the National Guard, may have the right to keep and bear weapons of war but not own them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

They are not two separate sentences -- and obviously the part about a "well regulated" millitia is part of the clause describing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You're right, it isn't 2 sentences... my bad.

The only logical way to read it, IMO, without just assuming they put half the clause in there for no reason whatsoever, is that the the right to keep and bear arms exists pursuant to a "well regulated" militia.

But they also made a point to include "the people." Besides, "militia" are civilian soldiers, separate from the national military.

 

[Iriemon]

You're right, it isn't 2 sentences... my bad.

But they also made a point to include "the people." Besides, "militia" are civilian soldiers, separate from the national military.

That may be true -- then the beef is why we do not have "well regulated" militias in this country, not whether private citizens should be able to independently own B-52s.

 

[The Real McCoy]

That may be true -- then the beef is why we do not have "well regulated" militias in this country

No need for them



...yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Someone serving in a "well regulated" infantry type organization, such as the National Guard, may have the right to keep and bear weapons of war but not own them.

So? Thats relevant, because?

They are not two separate sentences -- and obviously the part about a "well regulated" millitia is part of the clause describing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Desrcibing the REASON for the protection of the right of the people.
It does not modify "people" into "militia".

The only logical way to read it, IMO, without just assuming they put half the clause in there for no reason whatsoever, is that the the right to keep and bear arms exists pursuant to a "well regulated" militia.

See above.

Explain why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

Please, cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

Then explain how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

 

[Iriemon]

So? Thats relevant, because?

That is what it says.

Desrcibing the REASON for the protection of the right of the people.
It does not modify "people" into "militia".

According to the clause, necessary for the security of a free state.

Explain why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

The militia was comprised of "the people"

Please, cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

The constitution says nothing further about it that I am aware. There are many examples, however, in the consitution where the collective right supersedes individual rights.

Then explain how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

There is in the consitution a collective right to choose representation in government, not an individual right. That is the whole foundation of a representative form of government.

Now please explain to me, if under your view the constitution guarantees a individual, non-regulated right to bear arms of warfare, why can't a private citizen own a nuclear weapon?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is what it says.

But how is what you said relevant?
Why is the fact that a national guardsman might be able 'keep anf bear' arms but not own the arms that he keeps and bear relevant?
We're not talking about Guardsmen, we're talking about the people. Guardsmen are issued their weapons, and Guardsmen are part of the standing army.

According to the clause, necessary for the security of a free state.

Yes. Thats why the right of the people is protected - because it is necessary for the people to have the ability to form militia, to maintain the security of their 'state'.
It does not modify "people" into "miltitia"

The militia was comprised of "the people"

But, not all of the people are part of the militia.
The right of the people. not the militia is protected, and as such, the people, not just members of the militia, have their right ptotected.

And you STILL havsnt asnwered the questions:
Why use "people" when you mean "militia?"
Who argued that "people" means "militia" to the exclusion of those not in the militia?

The constitution says nothing further about it that I am aware. There are many examples, however, in the consitution where the collective right supersedes individual rights.

I didnt ask for quotes from the Constitution, I asked for quotes from the people that debated the amendment as they were debating it. Show me how they indended the amendment tomean what you argue it means.

There is in the consitution a collective right to choose representation in government, not an individual right. That is the whole foundation of a representative form of government.

The entire foundation for a representative government is the individual right to self-determination. Any collective right to self-determination is based upon said individual right.

You're arguing that the people have a right to own and use a firearm for the defense of their town, their state and their nation, but not their home or their person. If there is no right to own a firearm for their individual defense, then there can be no right to own a firearm for their collective defense.

Now please explain to me, if under your view the constitution guarantees a individual, non-regulated right to bear arms of warfare, why can't a private citizen own a nuclear weapon?

See my opening post.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I just think it's a shame that guns are so available to kids these days, but I blame irresponsible parents, more then I do our laws.

It's a combination of both. The ATF knows about rouge gun dealers that sell to felons, terrorists and violate the laws on the books. Yet there is no inforcement.

Fifteen years ago, Osama bin Laden sent one of his operatives to the United States to buy and bring back two-dozen .50-caliber rifles, a gun that can kill someone from over a mile away and even bring down an airplane.

In spite of all the recent efforts to curb terrorism, bin Laden could do the same thing today, because buying and shipping the world’s most powerful sniper rifle is not as difficult as you might think.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/60minutes/main681562.shtml

In the U.S., there are about 30,000 gun deaths and an estimated 75,000 nonfatal gun injuries each year, typically victims of criminal assaults, suicide attempts, and unintentional shootings.

http://www.ipgv.org/FMselfdefensive.html

 

[Deegan]

It's a combination of both. The ATF knows about rouge gun dealers that sell to felons, terrorists and violate the laws on the books. Yet there is no inforcement.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/60minutes/main681562.shtml



http://www.ipgv.org/FMselfdefensive.html

Not when it comes to children, children don't get their guns from "rouge gun dealers" You are correct that this is a problem with felons, but I was discussing children. Of course a felon who wants a gun bad enough, he will get one, some even get them from pawn shops. I am most concerned with keeping them out of the hands of young people, this is something I think we can do, and must do.

 

[Iriemon]

But how is what you said relevant?
Why is the fact that a national guardsman might be able 'keep anf bear' arms but not own the arms that he keeps and bear relevant?
We're not talking about Guardsmen, we're talking about the people. Guardsmen are issued their weapons, and Guardsmen are part of the standing army.

I didn't say it, the words "keep and bear" instead of "own" are right there in the amendment. That makes them relevant.

Yes. Thats why the right of the people is protected - because it is necessary for the people to have the ability to form militia, to maintain the security of their 'state'.
It does not modify "people" into "miltitia"

The concept of armed forces to maintain the security of the state is completely rational. In 1789, the armed forces were mostly comprised of a "well regulated" militia. I don't know if the country even had a standing army at the time.

But, not all of the people are part of the militia.
The right of the people. not the militia is protected, and as such, the people, not just members of the militia, have their right ptotected.

Perhaps. As I understand it, the concept of the citizen army was that most able bodied folks were expected to serve in the militia.

And you STILL havsnt asnwered the questions:
Why use "people" when you mean "militia?"
Who argued that "people" means "militia" to the exclusion of those not in the militia?

The armed forces in 1789 were largely represented by people serving in a well regulated militia. There was either no standing army or it was puny. It wouldn't make sense to say the army shall have the right to keep arms if there was none.

I didnt ask for quotes from the Constitution, I asked for quotes from the people that debated the amendment as they were debating it. Show me how they indended the amendment tomean what you argue it means.

If you want to argue what other people say, as opposed to the language of the amendment, the Supreme Court decisions do not support your theory that individual citizens have the right to own howitzers either.

The entire foundation for a representative government is the individual right to self-determination. Any collective right to self-determination is based upon said individual right.

I have no right to determine who my president is. Quite obviously.

You're arguing that the people have a right to own and use a firearm for the defense of their town, their state and their nation, but not their home or their person. If there is no right to own a firearm for their individual defense, then there can be no right to own a firearm for their collective defense.

The right to own a gun is different. IMO, the second amendment is talking about the right to bear arms pursuant to a "well regulated" militia.

See my opening post.

You are relying upon the Supreme Court's interpretation. If you want to defer to the Supreme Court in interpreting the clause, what they say goes and our opinions are irrelevant.

But your argument relies upon the militia part, as you justify your position by pointing out the Supreme's language that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Thus you use the concept of infantry to justify the argument for owning weapons of war, but conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of who can "keep and bear" these weapons.

But under your theory, any weapons posses by the infantry should be permitted to be owned by individuals. So why not howitzers? RPGs? Shoulder fired ground to air missles? Bradley fighting vehicles? TOWs? Those are all weapons used by the infantry. They may have access to tactical nukes as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't say it, the words "keep and bear" instead of "own" are right there in the amendment. That makes them relevant.

LOL
And I aksed you 'what does keep and bear' mean, if not own and use, when referring to the right of the PEOPLE (as opposed to guardsmen, et al).

The concept of armed forces to maintain the security of the state is completely rational. In 1789, the armed forces were mostly comprised of a "well regulated" militia. I don't know if the country even had a standing army at the time.

And...?
How does that translate into "the people" actually meaning "the militia"?

(There has been a standing army since 14 June 1775)

Perhaps. As I understand it, the concept of the citizen army was that most able bodied folks were expected to serve in the militia.

And...?
How does that translate into "the people" actually meaning "the militia"?

The armed forces in 1789 were largely represented by people serving in a well regulated militia. There was either no standing army or it was puny. It wouldn't make sense to say the army shall have the right to keep arms if there was none.

And...?
How does that translate into "the people" actually meaning "the militia"?

If you want to argue what other people say, as opposed to the language of the amendment, the Supreme Court decisions do not support your theory that individual citizens have the right to own howitzers either.

Than language of the amendment is in question; when this happens, you look to the intent of the people that created the language. I therefore ask again for quotes from the people that debated the amendment as they were debating it -- show me how they indended the amendment to mean what you argue it means

I didn't claim the 2nd protects the right to own a howitzer. Straw, man.

I have no right to determine who my president is. Quite obviously.

Because the current system of government doesnt give you one. Your current system of government was created through your individual right to self-determination, and because of this, your current system of government can be changed to reflect that right.

We have a government of b and for the people. Necessarily, that government is based on the individual right to self-determination.

The right to own a gun is different. IMO, the second amendment is talking about the right to bear arms pursuant to a "well regulated" militia.

How does that make it "different"?
And, while that's your argument, you havent presented anything of value to back it up:

You haven't explained why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

You haven't cited cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

You haven't explained how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

You are relying upon the Supreme Court's interpretation. If you want to defer to the Supreme Court in interpreting the clause, what they say goes and our opinions are irrelevant.

And what does the USSC say?
Hint: It supports my argument, not yours.
Look t US v Miller. If there were no individual right to arms, the USSC would have ruled that Milled did not have standing, as the right does not protect him.

But your argument relies upon the militia part, as you justify your position by pointing out the Supreme's language that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

Referring to the weapons protected. Yes.
Why? because its necessary to have weapons that will be useful to the miltiia.

Thus you use the concept of infantry to justify the argument for owning weapons of war, but conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of who can "keep and bear" these weapons.

Because the test in miller did not apply to who had the right, but what weapoins the right protected.

So why not howitzers? RPGs? Shoulder fired ground to air missles? Bradley fighting vehicles? TOWs? Those are all weapons used by the infantry. They may have access to tactical nukes as well.

Infantry do not have howitzers, Bradleys or nukes.
Artillerymen have howitzeers.
Mechanized infantry have Bradleys
And very very few, very very specialized artillery units have nukes.

 

[Iriemon]

And...?
How does that translate into "the people" actually meaning "the militia"?

What, according to the clause, is necessary for the security of the state? It does not say that the right of the people to bear and keep arms is necessary for the security of the state. It says a "well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of the state. The right of the people to bear and keep arms is for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia which is necessary for the security of the state.

If your beef is that the national guard is not a "well regulated militia" pursuant to the constitution, and there should be other forms of "well regulated militia" pursuant to which the people have the right to bear and keep arms, you may have a point.

Than language of the amendment is in question; when this happens, you look to the intent of the people that created the language. I therefore ask again for quotes from the people that debated the amendment as they were debating it -- show me how they indended the amendment to mean what you argue it means

I'm not going to bother. The position that someone took in a debate is not deteminative as to the meaning of the langugage. If you want to show me where their was a consensus that what they intended was that citizens had the independent right to RPGs, I'll consider it.

I didn't claim the 2nd protects the right to own a howitzer. Straw, man.

Howitzers are not weapons used by the infantry?

Because the current system of government doesnt give you one. Your current system of government was created through your individual right to self-determination, and because of this, your current system of government can be changed to reflect that right.

Right.

We have a government of b and for the people. Necessarily, that government is based on the individual right to self-determination.

Wrong.

How does that make it "different"?

Congress can pass law permitting and regulating the right of people to own guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, if regulated.

And, while that's your argument, you havent presented anything of value to back it up:

You haven't explained why the Founders used "the people" when (as you claim) they meant "the militia".

See above. It says the well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, not the right of the people to own arms of war.

You haven't cited cite for me one example of any of the framers arguing that the 2nd protects the collective right to arms to the total exclusion of the individual right.

OK.

You haven't explained how a collective right can exist w/o a corresponding individual right underneath it.

Asked and answered.

And what does the USSC say?
Hint: It supports my argument, not yours.
Look t US v Miller. If there were no individual right to arms, the USSC would have ruled that Milled did not have standing, as the right does not protect him.

I don't feel like researching or debating what the Supreme Court says. If it say you have the constitutional right to go out and buy machine guns and mortars, that's what it says.

Referring to the weapons protected. Yes.
Why? because its necessary to have weapons that will be useful to the miltiia.

What militia? If you want to join the militia today, and they give you weapons to bear and keep, I have no problem with it.

Because the test in miller did not apply to who had the right, but what weapoins the right protected.

OK.

Infantry do not have howitzers, Bradleys or nukes.
Artillerymen have howitzeers.
Mechanized infantry have Bradleys
And very very few, very very specialized artillery units have nukes.

First, where does the clause say militia is equivilent to the infantry? Second where does it say that it is limited to non-mechanized infantry? Third, where does it say that arms is limited to non-specialized weapons? Fourth, IMO the founders would have never visualized individuals citizens having RPGs, TOWs, and shoulder fired SAMs, nor does it make sense that they should. Except pursuant to a well regulated militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What, according to the clause, is necessary for the security of the state? It does not say that the right of the people to bear and keep arms is necessary for the security of the state. It says a "well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of the state. The right of the people to bear and keep arms is for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia which is necessary for the security of the state.

LOL
The militia is necessary. As such, it needs to be protected.
The militia is protected by guaranteeing the "right of the people".
"The right of the people" encompasses more than just militia service, and so while parts of it are not directly related to militia service, it is protected none-the-less.

If your beef is that the national guard is not a "well regulated militia" pursuant to the constitution, and there should be other forms of "well regulated militia" pursuant to which the people have the right to bear and keep arms, you may have a point.

The NG is part of the standing army. As such, it is not the 'Well Regulated Militia'.

I'm not going to bother. The position that someone took in a debate is not deteminative as to the meaning of the langugage.

LOL
"Legislative intent" means nothing.
LOL
News: When terms of law are unclear, the FIRST place you go is 'legislative intent'.

If you want to show me where their was a consensus that what they intended was that citizens had the independent right to RPGs, I'll consider it.

Another strawman. You know that there were no RPGs back then and as such no argument exists.

Howitzers are not weapons used by the infantry?

Correct.
Howitzers are artillery, and as such are used by artillery units, not infantry units.

Wrong.

Really?
If a government is of by and for the people, what else can it be based on if not the right to self-determination?

Congress can pass law permitting and regulating the right of people to own guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, if regulated.

So...?
The point was that the collective right to arms must be based on the individual right to arms. Your statement here doesnt in any way indicate how its 'different' for the right to arms.

See above. It says the well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, not the right of the people to own arms of war.

Doesnt answer the question. I'll take that as a concession of the point.

I don't feel like researching or debating what the Supreme Court says. If it say you have the constitutional right to go out and buy machine guns and mortars, that's what it says.

Ah. You wont arge the point. Take that as another concession.

What militia? If you want to join the militia today, and they give you weapons to bear and keep, I have no problem with it.

This doesnt have anything to do with that I said. Another concession from you.

It also denotes an underlying misunderstanding on your part -- the right to arms is protcted because the militias are not to rely on being able to issue state-owned arms to its members -- to rely on this means the militia can be destoryed by the state not owning any arms.

First, where does the clause say militia is equivilent to the infantry? Second where does it say that it is limited to non-mechanized infantry? Third, where does it say that arms is limited to non-specialized weapons?

I already made this argument.

Fourth, IMO the founders would have never visualized individuals citizens having RPGs, TOWs, and shoulder fired SAMs, nor does it make sense that they should. Except pursuant to a well regulated militia.

And...?
The object is to make sure that the militia has access to weapons suitable for assisting and/or resisting the standing army. Whatever sort of weapons these may be is irrelevant.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Not when it comes to children, children don't get their guns from "rouge gun dealers" You are correct that this is a problem with felons, but I was discussing children. Of course a felon who wants a gun bad enough, he will get one, some even get them from pawn shops. I am most concerned with keeping them out of the hands of young people, this is something I think we can do, and must do.

I agree with you on that point. I don't know how we put the genie back in the bottle with our country's love affair with guns. Mind you, I don't want to ban them - but like "the war on drugs" we're fighting a losing battle because people want them.

 

[Deegan]

I agree with you on that point. I don't know how we put the genie back in the bottle with our country's love affair with guns. Mind you, I don't want to ban them - but like "the war on drugs" we're fighting a losing battle because people want them.

I think much stiffer penalties for parents who allow their children to access these weapons, this would be a good start. If your child blows his little brothers brains out, we don't need to comfort these parents, we need to send them to prison!

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think much stiffer penalties for parents who allow their children to access these weapons, this would be a good start. If your child blows his little brothers brains out, we don't need to comfort these parents, we need to send them to prison!

Kinda depends on the situation, doesnt it?
If the kid breaks three sets of locks to get the gun, how liable is the parent?

 

[Deegan]

Kinda depends on the situation, doesnt it?
If the kid breaks three sets of locks to get the gun, how liable is the parent?

If he did that, I would assume he was old enough to suffer the consequences, I don't want to sound unreasonable here.

 

[Cremaster77]

It seems the most pro-gun advocates point to the 2nd ammendment and say that because we need to protect ourselves from the military, we need to be able to own assault rifles. Most however, are not for allowing anyone to go buy a F-16 fighter plane or Abrams tank. If the real issue was that we need to protect ourselves from the military, then the pro-gun proponents should support private citizens owning any weapon the military has, including nukes. Otherwise, what sense does it make to say that we need to protect ourselves, but then limit our ability to do so when the military comes rolling down your street with a tank. I find that to be a huge flaw in the argument that assault rifles are needed to protect ourselves from the military.

The fact is that the Constitution guarantees the right the keep and bear arms. It doesn't define what those arms are. Technically, nuclear weapons are arms, but we don't have the right to build or own them as private citizens. If you accept that limitation, then the argument simply is at what point do you draw the limit. For me, I see no purpose of keeping assault rifles and armor piercing bullets, the only use of which is to attack, not defend. Anyone who thinks they can stop the military in its tracks with a kalashnikov rifle is fooling themselves, and this renders that argument moot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact is that the Constitution guarantees the right the keep and bear arms. It doesn't define what those arms are. Technically, nuclear weapons are arms, but we don't have the right to build or own them as private citizens.

The supreme court has defined the weapons, however, and they dont include nukes, etc.

if youu accept that limitation, then the argument simply is at what point do you draw the limit. For me, I see no purpose of keeping assault rifles and armor piercing bullets, the only use of which is to attack, not defend.

Um... given your definition of 'defend', then no firearm has a defensive use.

Anyone who thinks they can stop the military in its tracks with a kalashnikov rifle is fooling themselves, and this renders that argument moot.

Tell me about the war we're losing in Iraq...