Originally Posted by Vincent
Gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment. "Abridge" is the key word...
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
Easy translation - congress has nothing legitimate to say about arms of any kind. The 2nd Amendment says we can own ANY form of arms and that any form of arms legislation is unconstitutional. Further, it charges us with the responsibility to bear arms. And its purpose is quite clear.
The Fathers correctly framed that right as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Armed citizens are the balance to the gubmint. Armed citizens are free citizens. That is precisely why politicians prefer unarmed citizens. In my view, any proponent of arms control should be stripped of their office and prosecuted for sedition because what they are doing is attempting to disrupt the order established by the Founders.
Registering one's sporting equipment is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.
So does a nuclear weapon constitute arms by your constitutional definition? If so, are you ok with your neighbor working on a nuclear based "arm?" Just curious.