I see, so a slippery slope fallacy is your response?

Or is that an all-or-nothing fallacy, better known as bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma?

Even with all the restrictions put in place after the Murrah building was bombed, it is still rather easy to make explosive and incendiary devices. Those will kill more people than an AR-15.

What is an "arm" or "arms"

Is it firearms or armaments?

Are we going to start playing semantic games now?

This is all a game of semantics

That's all law is

What do you think a well regulated militia would have in terms of "arms"?

But this is important because if arms means amaments, then banning people from own nukes or towahawk missiles is an infringement of that right. And if it is not, I question what is considered infringement and how does banning one type of armament count as infringement but not another?

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

This is why the actual definition of "arms" is important to this discussion

Do you think the government should have a nuclear weapon?

I don't anyone should have them, but thats different from should not be allowed to have them

What is the purpose, or what are the purposes, of the Second Amendment?

Idk, because it's purpose has been debated for a while now, apparently. And changes from who you ask.

The Second Amendment itself gives at least one purpose for its existence. The security of a free state.

Free from what?

The union?

Free to what?

Good question

In the context of the time, "a free state" refers, obviously I think, to freedom from tyranny.

so freedom from the union

Would the people require nuclear arms or tomahawk missiles to preserve security of a free state?

Actually yes.

Well then. It seems you've answered your own question.

So then you agree people should be allowed to own these, regradless of how reckless they are with them?

That would be an assumption on your part.

Well, it seems we just reached the conclusion that the ownership of nukes are covered by the second amendment, which would mean they are a type of arms, the various versions of firearms are also a type of arms, the second amendment, as you have pointed out, says this shall not be infringed. I argued that regulation does not consitiute infringement by default, as there are some instances in which someone's inability to properly handle a firearm is a threat to my own safety and would rather they not be allowed to have a firearm so I don't need to kill them to protect myself because they are inept. You seem to argue against that yet have yet to make clear how this is infringement yet banning ownership of nukes and tomahawk missiles isn't.

No, you reached that conclusion. I simply pointed out you had answered your own question. I personally do not believe that any person, family, tribe, organization, city government, county government, state government, or national government should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

And I like guns and would like to just get one liences and be done with it then have to get 20 billion things just to own a handgun. I also don't believe all or nothing ever works, even with the second amendment.

There could be some sort of planetary defense unit or division or whatever which should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, such as for example to destroy an asteroid headed for the planet or our moon, or an invading force from some other star system (if such a thing were to be real).

Nukes wouldn't do shit to those

I have multiple firearms, and have never had to have any kind of license for them. I have had to have a hunting license, but not a license to own or bear a firearm. I do live in a state with open carry oh, by the way.

Unless being used to push them off track

Altering the course of an asteroid so that it plows into the sun would be sufficient, would you not agree?

Oh, never had to a background check or register those weapons too theb.?

Home built?

I've only had a background check for one firearm purchase, the most recent. I do not have to register any of them and have never had to do so. Remember, I am a Texas girl.

Interesting. Why the one?

Because it's the only one I've bought after those laws went into effect. I bought it to honor Roger Moore after he passed away. It is a Walther PPK/S. I have wanted one for a long time, and after his passing, I decided it was time for me to buy one. It is now my preferred weapon. I keep it beside me at all times when I am at home, I can carry it in my vehicle, I can wear it in a holster which is not concealed. If I wanted to carry it concealed, I would have to get a license for that, which means training, the license only being granted after I have had training and passed the course. This would be an easy course for me to pass.