Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?

[© tweed]

Suppose it never existed until now.  Would you vote to ratify this?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[© tweed]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

[© tweed]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

Somebody please explain this!  How is it a right to own handheld atomic bomb detonators?

[© tweed]

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

^^^^^^

Why do you hate freedom?

Why don't you answer this?

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

[© tweed]

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?

The preamble of the amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment can be interpreted so that only those arms "necessary to the security of a free State" are protected.

If other enemy states acquired nuclear weapons, a militia in the USA would need these weapons as well.  Also, "arms" = "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms." from the dictionary.  An example they even give of an 'arm' is a 'nuclear arm'.

If a nuclear weapon could be carried and operated by hand, it would be an arm.

[© tweed]

I thought the left says the the right hates freedom but they want to restrict our right. Shame on you Tweed.

I'm just trying to save you from being vaporized in a mushroom cloud.

[© tweed]

Why don't you apply the same literalist interpretation to other parts of the Bill of Rights? I could argue, for example, that threatening to kill someone is protected under the free speech clause. Does it follow that you would have voted against ratifying the First Amendment?

Assault/murder isn't protected under speech and assembly.