F-15s and ICBMs
I draw the line between, let’s call it, arms and armament.
Indiscriminate, uncontrollable, one person is a danger to society at large, is a no-go.
Individuals should not be able to have their own actual WMD basically…we don’t want one individual to be able to flatten a city block with a nuclear detonation or indiscriminately kill via chem or bio weapons.
Anything an individual infantry soldier can carry and deploy…absolutely. Including anti armor tools like RPB or Javalin or whatever is used now…yeah that’s important for tyrrany.
Can WMD’s be deployed by a single person?
the contents under your kitchen sink are just as dangerous as most chemical weapons in the correct mixtures. you already have access to chemical weapons and you don’t even realize it lol
All. When the 2nd was written we had citizens that owned private warships under letters of Marque.
We’ll have to define “WMD” but the answer to the question of “can they be” is frankly irrelevant to the question of “should they be legal because of the 2A”.
Even if they aren’t now, who knows 200 years from now…or 20 years from now…or next month
But yes there are WMD that are that are deployable by an individual
in the traditional nuclear chain? no, one person doesnt honestly have the capabilities of firing off a ICBM, but something like the M65? thats a whole different story if you got 3 or 4 friends to help load it lol
The M65 280 mm Heavy Gun | The Havoc | Historic Affairs (melodichavoc.com)
I take it you haven’t seen the 70 years ago tech known as the Davy Crocket, check it out 
(there are also the B and C parts to NBC to watch out for)
Yeah, I know of the crockets, but last I heard there were still some rounds for the atomic Annie’s floating around in the US atomic arsenal. They were removed from service in the early 90s. Crockets have been out of production since the 70s
It’s not so much about this exact weapon from 70 years ago, it’s about the fact that, yes, a WMD can be deployed by an individual…even many decades ago.
So whether or not individuals should be able to possess such weapons is a viable question/discussion
There’s also the kid who was collecting fire alarms to build a micro reactor. It’s doable if you have the knowledge and knowhow.
So now we need to differentiate between something capable of being deployed by an individual and, kinda what I’m going for, something generally actually deployed by an individual solder.
The Crockett one is interesting because it was decided no one individual should be able to deploy even the smallest of nuclear devices, IIRC, they each had a code and both had to enter it…but it was phased out…
I’m sure there is a line somewhere. No individual should hold the ability to themselves build, possess, and deploy, say, the Tzar Bomba. JMO.
But banning rifles and RPG’s and the like is just silly ridiculous.
Is there a line between those two?
people could buy and use cannons back then!!!
AND…
they still can do so… lot of red tape but…
so… now???
Place a claymore mine right, wait to the right moment and you can take out a lot of people. An M60 machine gun can kill hundreds in the right conditions.
I don’t doubt that under perfectly terrible conditions, it could.
And? Is your position that it should be banned because it could potentially be used to kill hundreds?
Who me? I never said or mentioned that B word.
Where in the range between a title 1 firearm and a largest-ever-nuclear-warhead would you draw the line? Or no line, anything and everything legal for anyone ?
Dude, I am tired of hypotheticals with you. We both get dirty and I don’t need a shower right now.
I don’t think it’s a hypothetical at all. It’s very real.
It’s the thread title…what “arms” are protected by the 2nd Amendment?