Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
Why not though? Constitution says "right to bear arms". A nuclear weapon is considered arms.
|
for the same reason that the general public - and the world's militaries - should not be permitted to possess germ warfare capabilities.
those type of weapons kill indiscriminately.
when our nation was founded weapons technology was limited mainly to projectile weapons (yes, armor piercing ones in some cases, if the gun was big enough) and cutting instruments, so we can assume those are the type of arms they were referring to, weapons that a person is able to control and direct towards a particular target. modern firearms may look a bit different, however they function based on essentially the same principles as used back then.
the nightmare that is germ warfare and nuclear annihilation was inconceivable at that time, and is of little practical use in a battle of any nature on land that one intends to occupy after using it. it serves no purpose in the interest of preserving the republic against a rebel government and would provide no benefit in peacetime.
now please quit trying to be a smart ass
