Conservatives: why can't I own a nuclear weapon according to the strict text of the constitution saying "arms"?

Please explain this by only looking at the text. The Constitution is not a living document.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Strictly speaking - and I do mean strictly - the Constitution as amended does not prohibit you from owning any sort of weapon, including a thermonuclear device. When the second amendment was ratified the most powerful weapon in any arsenal was a sailing ship with multiple cannons. The founders had no problems at all allowing private citizens to own such weapons - in fact, they counted on it. (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: "Marque and reprisal")

    If we the people had been faithful to the intent of the founders all along and had actually amended the Constitution (see Article V) when we determined change was needed instead of allowing legislatures, executives, and judges to warp it into whatever they thought was appropriate at the time, it is a virtual certainty that we would have amended it to exclude nuclear weapons from second amendment protections.

    This assumes, of course, that it would have become possible for someone to actually afford a nuclear weapon. That is about as unlikely as someone being able to afford (and then going ahead and actually spending their riches on purchasing, operating, and maintaining) a submarine, strategic bomber, or any other outlandishly expensive weapons system.

    As a preemptive reply to the predictable objection that we could never amend the constitution fast enough or often enough to affect the changes some folks think we need: Exactly! The constitution is an inherently conservative document. It was designed to be difficult to change. If it weren't, we'd have a lot more unnecessary amendments like the twenty-first.

    You request your answerer adhere to textualism. I suspect you may be unaware that textualism isn't quite the same as originalism, or that originalism is itself actually divided into 'original intent' and 'original meaning'.

  • 4 years ago

    permit's see if I have been given this promptly. you do no longer provide a damn what the form says yet you criticize Conservatives for no longer understanding what it certainly says as against what they choose for to have confidence it says. you apart from mght say that when you consider which you have your very own philosophy of what's suited and incorrect, if the form says in any different case, that is incorrect. What you elect for is a favourite Democracy the place there's no fixed regulation, purely regulation consistent with which way the political winds are blowing. in the event that they are blowing your way, it rather is suited, in the event that they are blowing any incorrect way, that is incorrect. you're a favourite contained in the truest when you consider that. Your altruistic, utopian innovative and prescient of ways the rustic could artwork is a sort of happen destiny. What you elect for is right and all opposition to it would be swept aside. The ends justifies the potential. once you're success what you will get contained in the top is Greece or Spain. If unlucky, Communism or Fascism. Your philosophy is diametrically unfavorable to Conservative philosophy. the yankee Republic grew to become into set up with limited government and the secure practices of organic rights as with the intention to permit the suited volume of freedom at the same time as nevertheless conserving a smart, functional federal government. it rather is a sort of government that retains getting sophisticated. the commencing up of it is the form, examine with originalism and not as a residing rfile and "empathy".

  • phil
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    do you have the money or the knowledge on how to build one?i don't have a problem with people having weapons .i know the constitution is not a living document,it's meaning does not change over time,unless by amendment. still looking for the amendment that requires the federal government to be involved in social programs,education and health care

  • 1 decade ago

    According to a be consistent with strict interpretation, you can. It needs to be changed, through the Amendment process, not merely ignored as it is now.

    Why would you want to? What evil intent do you have in your heart?

    Weapons development has progressed well beyond the ability for the public to be at parity in terms of arms with their government. It's a plain statistical fact. Although they threat of our government using a nuke as a threat against it's own citizens is slim as it is counter productive to their agenda, so the threat is slim. Taxing us into servitude will suffice without all the bloodshed and radiation.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    If it's not a "living document," then your question answers itself. There were no nuclear weapons in 1777.

    School starts in September--be there.

  • 1 decade ago

    you said so yourself. the constitution is not a living document and those weapons didnt exist then.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because anyone with that possesses any nuclear has the power to blow another country to kingdom come. Do you truly think the government is stupid enough to give any american citizen that right?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    bryan go rob a doctor for material to make a dirty nuclear bomb.

    oh and arms is all weapons

    anyway you can have your nuke, i'll have a much more stylish zwei handler

  • 1 decade ago

    Look Greenie,go to school or go dunk your head,just really try and be constructive and not a lil D***!!!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Go find some weapons grade plutonium and uranium, then we will talk.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.