[quote=SK in CV]
You’ll have to ask him. “Arms” are weapons. The courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and not dismissed bans on some semi-automatic weapons. I’m pretty sure no one has ever successfully argued that the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment covers nuclear weapons.[/quote]

I’m honestly not sure of the relevance of this part of the discussion (exactly which weapons are or aren’t covered). I was responding to Lucky and, like I said, I’m not sure what his point was.

But, while we’re here, let me ask you this:

The entire text of the second amendment is’

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.

I understand that Supreme Court rulings have an effect on its meaning as it is currently applied.

If its meaning is that the citizenry shall be allowed to fight against government tyranny, then why wouldn’t nuclear weapons be covered? If we’re going to be fighting the U.S. government, then just guns isn’t going to cut it. We’d be up against F-18s, B1s, nuclear weapons, missiles, drones, the CIA, etcetera.

My point, if it isn’t obvious, is that, in the 21st century, the second amendment doesn’t really work as intended.

It’s being used by people who want to use their guns for other purposes. The NRA and other gun advocates try to sell the “Democide” idea, but it’s a ludicrous smoke screen of their real agenda, easily sold to paranoid and angry people.