Definition of "bear arms" under Second AmendmentSubmitted by Brian Middleton on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 20:05
There is so much arguing over what the right to bear arms means.
First, people need to STOP saying second amendment right, or constitutional right, because it implies that the constitution and its amendments gave you rights. It did NOT! It protects them. You have natural rights and they cannot be taken away. government is instituted to protect them. The sole purpose of government.
Now to the bear arms. What is the limitation? To me it is clear. The limitation is ANY weapon that when used as a self defense against a person or persons presents a clear and present danger to innocent people. So a nuclear bomb is obviously not covered.
So the weapon will depend on where you are. You can't use 40 hand grenades to defend yourself in a fight in a movie theater, but you could if you saw 4 thugs running towards your house.
The tool is not the issue. It is the effect of what it does and if the ramifications are that you kill 10 innocent people trying to defend against one person, such weapon should not be used.
If a thug has a tank, you can have a tank. In fact Arnold Schwarzenegger owns a tank and no one says a thing.
What are your thoughts.