I know that no one here advocates complete deregulation of arms. If you think about it the gun rights proponent party invaded a nation to prevent the acquisition of arms. Where should the limits be set? I wouldn't want any one with enough cash to be able to acquire a nuke. Where's your happy medium? I personally believe that in regards to guns, if they are banned only the cops and criminals will have them. It is a weird issue with alot of passion on either side. If you look around for examples, people will just resort to other forms of violence. Fore example, in England you are much more likely to be stabbed than shot.

Guns are one thing. WMDs are a totally different thing. When people talk about the right to keep and bear arms they are not talking about nukes or biological weapons. I think it's silly to conflate the two.

IMO, gun control is stupid, counterproductive and usually unconstitutional.

Nuclear arms?

armament: weaponry used by military or naval force

The 2nd amendment uses the word "arms" which could easily apply to nukes, or biological weapons. It's kind of funny to think that we started the war to infringe on Saddams second amendment rights. (Yes, I know the US constitution doesn't apply internationally)

I am just trying to examine the 2nd amendment from a different angle and hear other opinions in regards to it.

LOL. Good one.

Wrong. I'm not particularly concerned about people getting WMDs because they're phenomenally expensive and not especially useful unless you're a government.

Organizations which have a sizable fund raising base could easily acquire them if they wanted. That idea holds true for the individual but not organized groups such as Al Qaeda.

Most of us who are pro-gunners advocate the deregulation of "small arms", that being the typical weapons of an infantry soldier.

No more bans or registration of automatic weapons, claymores, grenades and launchers, and shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles.

If there weren't fucktards who would ruin it for everyone, I would advocate exactly this. The government should be afraid of it's citizens not the other way around. How can the average citizen defend against the government with only a deer rifle?

Al Qaeda doesn't particularly care about laws.

This is why we need more people to be armed, so the fucktards are outnumbered.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written and in the context it is used, the word "arms" referred to portable, handheld weaponry only. Other weapons were classified as "ordinance" (yes, that's how it was spelled at that time).

I personally think that all small arms should be completely unregulated.