B
Bikenut
Guest
Incorrect. Corpses were the only biological weapon available. Warships, cannon, and explosives were available WMDs of the day.The only WMD available at the time of the founders/framers. So the one place I can look to discern original intent in terms of the bounds of the 2nd amendment.
My continued and unanswered requests for cites and/or links is to get to facts instead of opinions or beliefs.You are doing a fine job of sparking some very interesting discussion. And for that I thank you. It is your continued asking for citations when we all know there are none to directly address this point that strikes me as a bit obtuse. All we can do is argue linguistics, original intent, logic, and rights theory.
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.Only if the limits violate what the 2nd amendment protects. If the 2nd amendment doesn't protect WMDs, then a ban on private possession of WMDs doesn't violate the 2nd.
The question is what does the 2nd amendment protect. Three of us--who often disagree with each other rather strenuously--have all provided very similar final answers, using at least 3, maybe 4, different tracks to get there. We don't believe the 2nd amendment protects WMDs.
Nope... attempting to put me on the defensive to disprove what was said won't work. You guys said it... you guys defend it.Rather than coming back again and again to the whole "government" and "allowed" thing, see if there are holes in the arguments that have been put forth that WMDs are not protected.
Is WalkingWolf's linguistic argument in error?
Is Marshaul's right's theory argument in error? What about his practical inability to "use" argument?
Is my original intent argument in error?
And so with that last bit are you defending the government limiting what arms the people are allowed to have?The point of government is to set and enforce rules. That is what governments do, it is why we have them. It is why some folks hate them. Most of us recognize a need to punish those who violate the rights of others. What we believe the limits of the 2nd amendment are, will set what kind of rules we will tolerate, or even demand.
If you want to make an anarchist, anti-government argument, you'd normally have several folks jumping right in with you. But when it comes to owning WMDs, I suspect even some of the well known anarchists might have to find the one area where they can see a reason for government limits on conduct.
Charles
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.