Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread. |
No, I don't. The right to bear arms hasn't changed because guns have changed. |
Freedom of speech has been used to commit crimes as well. Do we need to ban the 1A? Yes or no? |
Do you agree with the courts that there should be limits to 2a then? |
So let’s look at this evolutionary logic; Printing press, radio, television, the internet - all forms of communication. Muskets, repeating rifles, M1, AR15 - all forms of arms. Parallel advancements each still covered by the 1st and 2nd amendments. A very apples to apples comparison. |
That is correct. There is no nuance. Stay the F away from our firearms. |
No response? |
Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city? |
Is this within the well organized militia? |
A militia doesn't form until it needs to. It's in the future. Read the amendment. Your right to firearms are not dependent on it being formed at the moment. 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 won't respond because then they would have to admit the hypocrisy of their argument |
Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes. |
And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes? |