Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
The government has tanks, bombers, artillery, and nukes.
Wouldn't we need the same if we were to honestly be armed to defend ourselves from the government?
I think some would use the extreme of this logic to say that we should be able to purchase and own tactical nukes. Do we draw a line? Where do we draw that line?
|
Civilians have and do own artillery and tanks. I don't know any who own bombers, though. Usually takes a large crew to operate and maintain.
The "shot heard round the world" at Lexington (and Concord) was fired in defense of citizen militia ownership of artillery cannon and powder. As was the battle of Gonzales (opening act of war in the Texas War for Independence) - the army wanted the citizenry to surrender the cannon there and they refused.
You still can own operational tanks and artillery if you pay a $200 tax and submit to federal background checks.
The second amendment has always been understood to refer to the right of the people to arm themselves, both individually with small arms and collectively as organized militia with crew served weapons. The Founders recognized an armed and trained militia as the fundamental mechanism of free state security. They warned repeatedly against the dangers of "standing" professional militaries (except naval forces which require such).
As for nukes, those things are not individual small arms so doubtful they could be covered under the second article except in a community sense - which would mean under state control. Besides, states and congress have a duty to provide for the militia, and can refuse to allow them to be armed with certain weapons (like WMDs) as long as the rules aren't designed to subvert the purpose of militia (like banning possession of individual small arms).
Linear Mode
