EvMetro
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 10,328
- 6,740
- 970
- Thread starter
- #41
Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes . Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
Where in the Constitution does it say that? The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.
Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “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.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view.
Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it. I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.