No ifs, ands, or buts.

provided you don't kill anyone

or hurt them

(emotionally doesn't count)

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of instances where you're allowed to kill people with guns.

I hazard to guess that that's the primary reason we're allowed to have them.

only if they're doing things that threaten your life

Or property.

Or the lives or property of others.

that generally falls under Life threat

"strange person in the house"

Point being, there might be good reasons to not let people have nukes.

But then, there's good reasons not to let people have guns.

The Second Amendment allows for both. If we want to be a nation that follows its own laws *and* stops people from owning nukes, we need to rewrite the Second Amendment.

Problem is that you can clean up after a gunfight, but nukes leave the land dead for quite a while

@Eirene Yeah, you're right about that.
the beginning is often the beginning of the end.

Imagine if infringing on certain rights of others ended up having you stripped of those rights....

Not Really Bookworm. Read 2A.

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.

What is a Militia?

"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."

basically like in Red Dawn

Red dawn was a documentary

In every sense a Militia is "The people" who are armed with small arms that can be called upon for defense of their local area. They are either the absoulte first or last line of mobilization.

So arguing about the Second Amendment covering Nukes is a distracting bit of hyberoly meant to distract from the core issue, the Second Amendment says the people have a right to keep firearms.

it also written was back in the day when "small arms" were almost = in firepower to what the military had (british)

to such an extent that the people overthrew the british

According to the Federalist Papers the founding fathers wanted the general public to be armed just as well if not better then the average infantry soldier and until about the Great War they were.

Firearms are protected by the 2nd amendment but thats not the end all be all

well..... https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/mel-bernstein-abc-jef-171025_16x9_1600.jpg

It wasn't really until the National Firearms Act that the American Citizen was probihited from being better armed than the Army

Lets stay on the average guys

>this one rich dude owns a bunch of pre 1986 machine guns

Means nothing, the hughes amendment is effectively a machine gun ban and should be found unconstitutional

A lot of people are arguing for the repeal of the entire NFA

all you need is a bulldozer and an angry engineer

NFA repeal is the ideal but hughes amendment is arguably worse than the NFA

(was a sad story actually, guy got screwed by the local govt and big business)

In the 1950's New York kids built pistols out of stuff from hardware stores. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

Only two murders have happened with post 1934 legal machine guns, the hughes amendment is not saving lives and is artifically increasing the value of pre 1986 machine guns, barring them from the average citizen

if people can be armed as well as the military it will bump up the cost of running police as well...