Every single arm they can procure. Every one of them. If they can find the uranium, figure out fission or fusion or whatever, build a missile system, etc… then they can have a nuclear weapon.
That’s how the second reads to me. [/quote]
You are correct. That’s why I wrote this in the other thread:
“To be perfectly honest, a repealing or amending of the 2nd Amendment is what it’s going to take for you, the smh’s of this world, and other intelligent thinkers to accomplish what it is you so greatly desire.”
George Will said the same thing many years ago.
Gun control advocates are going to have to face the music. A repeal or an amendment to the Amendment is the only intellectually and constitutionally honest way to for gun control folks to accomplish their goals. The alternative is further unconstitutional twisting of the 2nd.
“Shall not be infringed” means what it says. “But what if…backpack nuclear weapons” meanderings cannot change “shall not be infringed.”
So Congress or the states should begin the amendment process and state in whatever terms, “The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby amended to the effect that private citizens can be restricted from owning nuclear weapons, fighters and bombers, Surface to Air missiles…and rifle, handgun and shotgun magazine capacities that exceed 10 rounds, etc.”[/quote]
No, this is absurd and ahistorical. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly specify whether or not all conceivable arms are protected under all conceivable circumstances. If the absence of these qualifiers forces a default adoption of absolutism – and that’s exactly what’s being argued with the mechanistic textualist quotation of the line “shall not be infringed” – then:
– If a court tries to stop the brother of a guy about to be sentenced – probably to the death penalty – from bringing a loaded 12-gauge and a potato sack full of pipe-bombs into the courtroom, he can gain uninhibited entry by simple saying, “shall not be infringed.” After all, just as the Constitution doesn’t specify that there are certain arms open to infringement, it does not read “shall not be infringed – except in certain places and by certain authorities.” Our default to ahistorical absolutism requires the federal government to…wait for it…not infringe ever, anywhere.
– If I walk into a crowded theater that isn’t burning and yell “fire,” and ten children die in the stampede, and then I explicitly admit malice aforethought, I can’t be sanctioned by the authorities. After all, the Bill of Rights protects against “abridg[ment] [of] freedom of speech.” It doesn’t protect some speech, and it doesn’t list any exceptions. It says no punishing citizens for speech. I spoke – “fire!” – and I can’t be punished.
– If I sit in court, during my own trial, and continuously/unendingly recite, out loud, a repeating loop of the lyrics to “Niggas in Paris,” I can’t be held in contempt of court, and nobody can do jack shit about it. After all, the Bill of Rights protects against "abridg[ment] [of] freedom of speech. It doesn’t say some speech, and it doesn’t say except in such and such cases – it says no punishing citizens for speaking. I spoke, and I can’t be punished.
– If I stand up in class at my public university, during an exam, and begin reading the answers aloud…nobody can do a goddamn thing about it or sanction me in any way. After all, the Bill of Rights protects against "abridg[ment] [of] freedom of speech. It doesn’t say some speech, and it doesn’t say except in such and such cases – it says no punishing citizens for speaking. I spoke, and I can’t be punished.
If your understanding of American law leads you to irrational absurdity, your understanding of American law is wrong. It’s as simple as that.