That was a big deal, too, at least for me, because I had "Never point a gun at someone unless you mean to use it" drilled into my head by my dad for years.

What do you think a "militia" was in 1791?

Before you answer, be advised that the constitution itself refers to a federal army. If the Second Amendment were referring to a government-controlled body of people, why would it not use the same term?

Why use the term well regulated? There is a difference between the state and the federal government.

isnt a milita basically an organised band of civilians formed to protect themselves?

The National Guard is not now and never was a militia.

@Dr.Wol yes.

You can point to the phrase well regulated militia all you want, but the second part says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

Penn is that you? 😛

Alright, let's give everyone nukes

The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very careful in their choice of words and language.

And tomahawk missiles

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.