Comment: It's not that I disagree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Did you read my definition of (see in situ)

It's not that I disagree

It just seems like an incomplete definition because it doesn't address property rights. You excluded nukes, why? because it's hazardous material?or because of the scale of the damage that it can do?
ok,forget about nukes.we'll say you can't own that...but why stop there?

let's go down the food chain.
how about an aircraft carrier?
an f-16
an M-1 Abrams?
an M60 machine gun?
an assault rifle?
a semi auto pistol?

If you can preclude ownership of one, then you can do so for others. I think a better way to look at it is to distinguish between personal defense and collective defense when defining 'being armed', not to focus solely on what object that is being used.