What are arms, under the 2nd Amendment?
This comes up every so often, and while most people tend to agree that small arms are covered (as long as they agree the 2nd A is valid at all), but tend to draw the line at artillery, tanks, planes, and especially nukes.
Some people go a little farther in their thinking, including tanks, cannons, and combat aircraft believing in the "sword and every terrible weapon of the soldier" being included in the concept, as determined by our founding fathers. But Generally, as a matter of "common sense", they draw the line at nukes (or other weapons of mass destruction).
Anyone advocating private ownership of nukes is immediately shoved onto the trash heap of ideas, and their words ignored, by both sides, as it is just such a ridiculous concept. But is it really?
People instantly fixate on the idea of a disturbed individual whith their own nuke in their apartment, and the devastation it would cause if detonated. Truly a horrid scenario, but really, how reasonable is it?
Cannon, mines, tanks, combat aircraft, etc. all these things are sold by our Govt, and allowed (under restriction) to be owned by provate individuals. If they have the funds. Indeed, ALL our arms are allowed to us only on the approval of the Govt. Our rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns are all "approved" for our ownership by the Govt. Our 2nd Amendment right is the reason Govt is required to approve our ownership, but make no mistake, approve it does. Otherwise, we get prosecuted. Our Govt has a system and sticks to it, making it expensive and difficult for individuals to own anything larger than individual (or crew served automatic) weapons, but there is no outright prohibition, other than local prohibitions in specific areas.
You can own a tank, and anti tank missle, land mines, bombs, even a battleship, if you can afford it, and follow the Govt. regulations. ALL LEGAL. Expensive, awkward, difficult, officially discouraged, yes, but not against the law.
Now, nukes are another matter. The Govt has never allowed nuclear weapons on the open market. Special Nuclear Material (the heart of the nuke) is not legal for sale or private ownership in this country (or any other I know of).
Nukes may fall under the 2nd Amendment in principle, but under our framework of law, you can neither buy nor build one, legally. So including nukes into discussion of the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose, save to distract from the reality of discussion.
We do own nukes, collectively, through our ownership of ALL Govt property. And we do have control over them, through our system of Govt, and the control of elected officials over the military. What we do not have is direct personal access or storage by private individuals, nor should we. Nuclear weapons (and chemical/biological ones) are determined by us (through our Govt) to be strategic weapons, not tactical ones, and therefore rightfully not under the direct posession of private individuals.
I do disagree with those who believe that people should by restricted on what they can own based on where they live. Somebody brought up the situation where they were ok with a farmer owning dynamite, but not an apartment dweller having some C-4. Leaving aside the fact that C-4 is more stable (and therefore "safer") than dynamite, inferring that someone whop lives in an apartment is more of a risk than a farmer would seem to me to be prior restraint on the indivdual's rights, a prejudice backed by the force of law. Communities may certainly determine their standards for safe storage, and use, but an outright ban on ownership is a violation of civil rights.
It is the lazy way for Govt to provide an illusion of safety. And it exists in many places all over this country, with thousands of gun control laws. All taking the lazy way out, and all providing nothing more than an illusion of safety.
