So based on what you have said, a person should be able to have a nuclear device for protection? What about a tank, should we all be allowed to own and operate a tank? Rocket propelled grenade launcher, is that something we should all be allowed to carry? Why settle for a 9mm hand gun with ten 32 shot magazines? After all we should all be allowed to carry the most effective tools available?

Not to ignore your point of who should and who shouldn't, but I think a more valid point is, when is it too much firepower?
It's one thing to have weapons available to a well regulated militia, should the militia be allowed to carry their weapons to supermarkets, movie theaters, courthouses, political rallies?

When does the definition of a well regulated militia begin or end?

You keep mentioning "well-regulated militia" in your post. Don't you know that phrase only exists in the imagination of gun-grabbers? The Founding Fathers were in favor of every Tom Dick & Harry having enough firepower to invade Normandy in WWII.

as you seem to reference statements that were never made.

My condolences on your reading difficulties.

So based on what you have said, a person should be able to have a nuclear device for protection? What about a tank, should we all be allowed to own and operate a tank? Rocket propelled grenade launcher, is that something we should all be allowed to carry? Why settle for a 9mm hand gun with ten 32 shot magazines? After all we should all be allowed to carry the most effective tools available?

You may not know it, but this sort of nonsense has been spouted and debunked countless times before.

The second amendment was about, and is nearly universally accepted to be about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they could serve as infantry in time of war.

It was not about crew-served weaponry, including artillery or naval forces, which existed at the time of the founding.

The second amendment is nearly universally accepted as pertaining to weapons capable of discrete targeting, and not indiscriminate weapons like explosives or nuclear weapons.

I think you will find very very few people using the second amendment as justification for keeping and bearing grenades, or nuclear weapons. This is what is called a "Straw Man" argument. No one is advocating for what you are suggesting.

Not to ignore your point of who should and who shouldn't, but I think a more valid point is, when is it too much firepower?

This is a great question! And the answer is quite simple. If the second amendment was intended to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they could function as infantry in time of war, then the correct amount of firepower is whatever small arms are currently in the hands of the infantry in our standing armed forces.

After all, the whole point of the state militias was to eliminate the need for, or at least to be able to counter, federal military power.

It's one thing to have weapons available to a well regulated militia, should the militia be allowed to carry their weapons to supermarkets, movie theaters, courthouses, political rallies?

Since the people who carry concealed weapons tend to commit less crime - any kind of crime - than people who don't, I don't see the problem with letting them do so.

The fact of the matter is, statistically, you'd be safer from crime in a movie theater full of CCW-permit holders than you would be with a random sampling of the public at large.

When does the definition of a well regulated militia begin or end?

It ended in 1903, when the federal government federalized the state militias. The well-regulated militias spoken of in the Constitution no longer exist.

The blast radius would kill you, your attacker and any bystanders.

A tank might be fun to drive but they are gas-guzzlers and very expensive to maintain. The local authorities might find that they are not street legal and they might actually damage the roads they drive on.

It's hard for me to visualize how an RPG would serve as a weapon suited for self defense. If I found myself facing an attacker, I would such a weapon awkward to employ quickly and the collateral damage would be considerable.

I know a lot of people who carry a firearm legally and not one packs a weapon with a 32 round magazine and those who do carry a pistol may carry one magazine in the weapon and one as a backup. I carry a five shot .38 caliber revolver and one speed loader with five additional rounds. In my opinion that is more than adequate for self defense.

The militia question was largely settled by the current Supreme Court. That ruling is unlikely to change in the near future. Sorry, but that is reality.

How would you use a rocket launcher at a ATM holdup?


Most homeowners are concerned with over penetration of walls inside their home from common caliber firearms, and you want to detonate a nuclear device inside your home?

Perhaps you didn't know that, but they are available. Generally, the guns on tanks must be NFA registered, and each round of a rocket launcher must also be registered. But you can own a tank without guns tomorrow, if you have the cash.

As to the hyperbolic 'nuke' schtick- Justice Ginsburg defined 'carries' well-

Muscarello v US, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) -

[div class='excerpt']“surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

So a nuke wouldn't be very effective in self-defense as it would likely kill yourself as well. Same with a rocket launcher.

The definition of a well-regulated militia has no bearing on the right protected by the second amendment- the right pre-dated the constitution.

See the preamble to the bill of rights-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, or the limits of the rights protected, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments.

eta: formatting

I'd like to remain in control of the level of safety I can provide to myself, family and property.

The last thing I need/want is a "guns kill people" type to decide my life isn't worth protecting.

Therefore, I draw no line. I answer all of the above as well.

In some places only the top 1% matter.


In most of the country everyone's rights are respected.

those who, without just cause, are in the act of committing or threatening to commit a violent attack of any kind on others.

Semper Fi,