Right to bear arms.

"The second amendment grants us the right to bear arms" Ah, but it does soooo much more. Lets look at the exact text of the amendment: "A well regulated militia being nessesary to the scurity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This doess far more than just describe the right to keep arms. It describes the reason. To understand this further, we must turn to the people who wrote the constitution and those of the time who contributed to it in some way. there was much talk not only about the nessesity of a citizen keeping arms, but also on the institution of the citizen force, the militia. "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." ~ Rep. Elbridge Gerry " but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights" ~Alexander Hamilton "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~Patrick Henry People having nukes? No. That is a bit of a stretch. One could take it as far s to say the states could posses them. But people? No, but then nukes aren't your average weapons, since their destructive power goes far beyond simply killing people, they destroy entire cities and have long lasting impact on the planet itself if used in sufficiant quanities (which doesn't take much). But the unorganized militia does already have ready access to some pretty advanced stuff under the organization of the states various defense forces land and air power.

I would say it would depend on the interpretation on the word arms. If you took Arms to mean a weapon of any kind then a WMD would be included. (Not sure how you would go about using one) The United States Government would have a problem with it and so would most of the people in the nation. The U.S Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways. Some would say that you can only have arms in a well regulated Militia as also stated in the second amendment. Since most people do not have the money nor the tools to get a WMD into the United States. This issue has yet to ever reach the supreme court. The current belief held by most people in this country is that you as a citizen have the right to bear arms so that you can protect your liberty and freedom as well as your safety.As well as those of your family/house. Also the whole reason this was put into the bill of rights is so that we could if needed do what we did in the revolutionary war and kill the government if it had turned "evil". So the real reason for this is so that citizens have a means to defeat a government that had grown to powerful for its own good and started to crush the citizens of this nation as it is our duty to do in this country. That is from the United States Declaration of Independence.

The second amendment to the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to bear arm, it prevents the Federal government from infringing on the right. I have never understood why is it so hard for people to understand that concept.

Not even our own government should have nuclear weapons. That is one particular weapon that would do us all a load of good if it simply ceased to exist.

Its every nations sovereign right to defend its territory. And under such a scenerio to disuade or stop that nation from acquiring weapons to defend itself would be unfair. Every country has equal right of existence,whether big or small. Big countries cant act as bullies to stop smaller nations from defending itself