Militias should be well regulated, but not guns?

QUOTE=SmarterthanYou;1640584]that is not what I said. I said any arms that the government would bring to bear against it's citizens, the citizens should also have. It would be political suicide to drop a nuke on it's citizens, as well as bombing runs or jet fighters.

You claim you didn't say it, but you say it again. Any arms.

Do you believe citizens have a 2nd amendment right to nuclear arms?


what do you think I said the 2nd says?

That the "people" have a right to bear arms, and that right is to not be infringed.

do you foresee the government using these weapons against citizens?

the government thanks you for your support in its tyranny

I don't know. I believe the government would not use nuclear arms against us. It is just a belief. But I don't think the founders wanted the people to have nuclear weapons.
 
You claim you didn't say it, but you say it again. Any arms.

Do you believe citizens have a 2nd amendment right to nuclear arms?
focus on the words I have posted....any arms that the government would bring to bear upon its citizens. if you want to ask about nuclear arms, ask yourself if the government would use nukes on its citizens. If your answer to that is yes, then hell yes we should also have nuclear arms to use against the government.

That the "people" have a right to bear arms, and that right is to not be infringed.
and you don't consider that this is the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

I don't know. I believe the government would not use nuclear arms against us. It is just a belief. But I don't think the founders wanted the people to have nuclear weapons.
the founders were only concerned with preventing the government from doing or imposing ANY power or regulations over the rights of the people. this is evident by the numerous commentaries concerning the 2nd Amendment prior to ratification.
 
Back
Top