Incorrect. Corpses were the only biological weapon available. Warships, cannon, and explosives were available WMDs of the day.
No, these are NOT WMDs, not even in the 18th century. Cannons, explosives, and warships can all be used rather discriminating. Even in the late 1700s, a warship could pretty reliably drop an exploding cannon ball into an single fort, or within a city block or so. Total blast range was measured in yards from the impact. Washington parked his cannon in Cambridge, aimed them across the river at the British fortifications in Boston, without those cannon posing any threat at all to the American Colonists in Cambridge, or even a couple of blocks in either direction away from his point of aim.
Nukes, Chemical, and Biological weapons do have anywhere near that level of containment.
It seems you do not understand what a WMD actually is.
My continued and unanswered requests for cites and/or links is to get to facts instead of opinions or beliefs.
Well then you will be disappointed. My apologies, you're not being obtuse. It seems you simply do not understand what facts are. T
here are no "facts" to answer your question. You can have the opinions, logic, and reasoning of WalkingWolf, Utbagpiper, and Marshaul, or you can have the opinions of Justices Roberts and Kennedy, or you can have the opinions, logic, and arguments of Madison, Hamilton, and Patrick Henry.
There are no "facts" except as we may assert a "fact" as to which opinion expressed by which individual at some point in time.
Undoubtedly, some opinions will be far more legally binding than others. Some will carry more weight in terms of what the framers intended. But at the end of the day, all are opinions.
Yes... that is the question asked in the OP. Where is that line drawn? Does the government violate the 2nd Amendment if it limits what arms the people are allowed to have? So far there have been opinions and beliefs offered as answers.
There have also been some pretty strong logical arguments regarding impacts to others' rights, whether WMDs actually provide any protection against a tyrannical government, and what we might discern about original intent lacking specific writings from the framers on a subject that would not have warranted comment from them. Every weapon common to the soldier was clearly included in the protections of the 2nd amendment. But I can find no evidence that anyone even considered on the possibility that someone would want to, much less have a right to, maintain biological weapons. The risk is clearly too large while the benefit too small.
Nope... attempting to put me on the defensive to disprove what was said won't work. You guys said it... you guys defend it.
We have defended it. You simply don't accept the defense. Which is fine. Nutty in this case. But fine.
The problem is that you don't seem interested in engaging in any real debate or discussion, you simply want someone to provide "facts" where there are none, citations that don't exist, or to provide some level of proof that even you can't define.
And so with that last bit are you defending the government limiting what arms the people are allowed to have?
Oh... and kindly do not cleverly wordsmith in an attempt to imply a diminishing or demeaning slant to my postings with references to making an anarchist anti government argument when I am most certainly not doing any such thing.
I am defending the proper ability of government to limit possession of items that pose grave risks to the rights of all of humanity and that are not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Are you claiming there is some right for individuals to own chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?
Charles
lol
