No. Cocaine is a narcotic. Bombs and hand grenades were clearly not in the contemplation of the framers. A weapon which would expel shards of metal to lodge into a person with deadly force was. Anthrax is a biologic agent...not a weapon that would fall under the 1789 contemplation of "arms." Sarin gas can be weaponized, but is not in and of itself a weapon. In short, Major's list is an attempt to see how far the argument can be pushed.
Bombs and hand grenades were clearly not in the contemplation of the framers. A weapon which would expel shards of metal to lodge into a person with deadly force was. First off, the framers certainly contemplated explosives. It's not like those things weren't around back then. Second, your definition of "arms" is a bit arbitrary. Certainly, the framers never contemplated a gun that could fire bullets at the rate of dozens per minute - yet that seems to be part of the definition now? Take the spectrum of arms: handgun rifle shotgun semi-automatic machine gun bazooka grenade launcher rocket launcher stinger missile missile ICBM nuke Where is the limit of what the framers envisioned and why? And why would we build a definition of arms around 18th century technology? Do you not believe that changes in technology and resources should be considered when interpreting the constitution? Certainly we do it in other areas. The right to free speech, for example, covers TV, internet, etc even though those things were never contemplated by the framers. Why wouldn't the right to bear arms cover modern arms, just as the right to free speech covers modern methods of speech?
So riddle me this; according to federalist papers, is it clear that I can have a 50 mm machine gun w/depleted uranium bullets or not?
Just to reiterate... 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. - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution The Constitution states the rights listed are not given by the government, but are inalienable. In other words, they are natural and cannot be infringed upon by the government. Questions...we've got questions: What is enough firepower, in your opinion? And against whom? Do you know anything about how a weapon's effectiveness is measured or quantified? If you don't, how the heck do you know how much firepower someone needs? I only ask because I suspect many of us really don't know anything technically substantive about firearms of any kind. Most people wouldn't know which end of the weapon is the dangerous one.
