Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonium
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.
|
No question that your post was articulate. However, the definition of "arms" didn't come from the Constitution, nor does it tell me what "arms" I can or can't have.
You said that grenades and other destructive weapons were disallowed...yet they are
not. You can legally own bazookas, tanks, and all kinds of other things people
assume you can't.
My point is that the Constitution
does not state what "arms" you are allowed to carry although it's clear that whatever those "arms" are the right to carry them is unquestionable.
So from a Constitutional standpoint I
can carry a FIM-92 Stinger, and so can you. From a
Constitutional standpoint we can carry a suitcase nuclear weapon. Prove to me that the Constitution doesn't allow this, and that it doesn't guarantee the individual right to have these weapons.