I have no problem with private ownership of explosives or even grenades if the laws for improper use were severe enough.
And shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles? Or are you simply lumping those in with explosives?
Now how about we play your game in the other direction ?
Could you point me to the part of the second amendment that mentions specifically keeping and bearing firearms as a right?
We could use your logic and say that knives and clubs fit the description of arms as set forth by the founders. And those weapons are no more removed from the flintlocks of the day than the modern weapons we have now are.
Could one not argue, since your reading of the constitution allows for regulation, that only knives and war clubs are protected?
But then we are back to your argument that there is no provision for concealed carry and for that matter possession in public is also not specifically mentioned either.
So perhaps the framers were merely looking out for chefs and baseball players
So now my question to you is
Where do you draw the line?
Actually, the way I'm reading the Constitution (and the only way that makes logical sense, once you prohibit ownership of
any arms...such as nuclear weapons) is that
even knives and clubs are not necessarily protected from any and all regulation. The government can choose to regulate or not regulate those within reason as well (as in, according to public interest), provided the overall right to bear them is infringed in the least restrictive way possible. In other words, I define infringe much differently that you...logically I have to, once nuclear weapons (or shoulder-fired missiles, or M1A2 tanks, or any other weapon system) are restricted from sale to anybody with the money and the desire.
That's the fun part about my argument...it actually works logically in
both directions, all the way to both ends of the spectrum. Simply because the government has chosen to regulate explosives, or nuclear weapons, or concealed carry does not suddenly
obligate them to similarly regulate pocketknives. Any given "arms" can be regulated according to compelling public interests.
At which point, as I said, it all depends on where you decide to draw a line. As for where
I draw the line, I think I've made that clear. Shall-issue permits, no monetary cost, minimal training, probationary permits for instant issue until classes completed, flexible class schedules, etc. Just go re-read my post if you feel the need to. That's where I draw the line, at least where concealed carry of firearms is concerned.
If you want to know where I stand as far as
other weapons are concerned, I suppose we could jabber about it all day. Obviously I don't think private citizens should own nukes. I
do think I should be able to purchase an M2 machine gun, with a license that doesn't cost anything and is only moderately more difficult to get than the mythical universal concealed permit we're talking about. That should give you some idea.
I'm just pointing out to you that you speak in absolutes, with no lines and no compromises...except that eventually there are. Which logically makes no sense. You point at the 2A and claim there can be no "infringement"
of any kind on the right to "arms," except that there can be and you admit there can be. At which point you are no longer literally interpreting the 2A, either...you're just drawing the line farther up the chain than I am.
Which is cool. Just be honest about it, and then don't try to point to the literal text as an argument.
