What's there to decide? It's English...The 2nd admendment names the "Militia" and "the people"...as protected parties regarding "arms"...
Well, the reasoning is since "ARMS" can be anything,...shouldn't there be a allowable reasonability test? I think the NFA of 1934 provides that (even though no where does the Constitutition either says the government can or can't regulate guns...) The 1934 act mandates caliber to less than .50 and deals with SBR, and other issues
Right to Bear Arms <table width="400" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td height="273" valign="top"><embed src="http://www.tubearoo.com/player/spiked_player.swf?file=http://www.tubearoo.com/videocodes/24307/data.xml&auto_play=false" quality="high" scale="noscale" bgcolor="#000000" width="100%" height="100%" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></td></tr></table>
Yes!!! All people should own nukes!! Let's give them to the teachers so they can protect our children!
This is all silly. A tad of legislative history will tell you what the founders were talking about...they were talking about guns...and in their time, that meant muskets. If they would mean for it to be more later is debateable...but the argument that maybe they weren't talking about guns when they said arms is silly.
So gun control is the only reason we cannot own nukes? I want to start my own nuclear plant in my backyard, you thinl the DOE would have a problem with that? Its not a weapon afterall.
Of course, they were talking about guns silly-willy,...but the term of "arms" of today can be anything... The 1934 NFA regulation takes into account the reasonability issue of encompassing the term "arms" to be those that were in similar fashion of those in existance of yore, such as: shotgun, handgun, rifles... The reasonability issue of this regulation determines allowable bore size, length and semi-automatic mode versus selective fire mode... All issues meant to transition the term of "arms" of today to a protected area dealing with reasonable capabilities of shotguns, rifles, and pistols offered to "the people"... This is the way to allow the 2nd admentment to be a protected right as intended, while addressing the test on "reasonability" to be fully satisfied...
Yeah because the only thing used in wars back then were muskets. I mean they never wanted the people to have anything powerful.
If the 2nd Amendment says you can't regulate arms, then yes, the 2nd Amendment would prevent the government from forbidding people from owning nukes. How would it not? Nukes are arms + government can't regulate arms = government can't regulate nukes. The 2nd Amendment either allows the government to regulate or it doesn't. There's no real in-between option that I can see.
I see a test is necessary on reasonability due to advanced and unforseen technology not considered by the founding fathers,... a test on reasonability should be,...and has been met...(1934 NFA Act)... The purpose of the test of reasonability is to allow the continued protection of the 2nd admendment tights to "the people"... Without the test of reasonability, then continued 2nd admendment rights is not possible,...which is of course,...unconstitutional...Therefore, a test of reasonability is neccessary towards the preservation of sacred 2nd admendment rights... The test of reasonability can often be applied to other law statues, and Constitutional rights issues...therefore, a test of reasonability is implicit as assurance of continued rights...
Find me some comments from the Founders with regard to the 2nd Amendment and cannons. Find me a quote that connects those.
Understood - but that's not written in the Constitution anywhere. You created that test of reasonability based on your own ideas, and nowhere in the Constitution does it decide what is reasonable. Who's to say that banning all handguns can't be considered reasonable? Or banning certain kinds of bullets? Or requiring background checks? Or having no restrictions at all. The entire idea of reasonability is entirely arbitary. Once you introduce that, then no limits or lack of limits on guns can be based on what's in the Constitution - it's based on a line that different people will reasonably differ on. And that's fine - but then the 2nd Amendment is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
Sorry if I was unclear. There may be other reasons not to own nukes, but none of those can override the Constitution, if the 2nd Amendment does say the government can't infringe on the right to bear arms. You'd have to have a Constitutional Amendment to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to add "unless there are other, unrelated good reasons to do so". There are plenty of reasons not to own guns, so you could use that same argument there.
