Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?

[Emsworth]

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?

The amendment would not protect the right to bear nuclear weapons. The amendment's text, as well as its context, suggests that it protects weapons of a nature suitable for self-defense. Nuclear weapons do not fall within this category.

[Emsworth]

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.

Also, note the First Amendment says that Congress may make no law abrdidging the freedom of speech. This does not imply that one can say whatever one pleases. One cannot commit perjury, publish libels, or threaten to kill someone. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted in an absolutist fashion; the same applies to the Second Amendment.

[Emsworth]

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?

[Emsworth]

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

Threatening to kill someone is clearly speech.