Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Does the 2nd amendment include the right to bear artillery?
Modern guns are deadlier than 18th century artillery. Therefore, shouldn't modern guns be compared to 18th century artillery rather than 18th century firearms? Modern artillery of course is not covered by the second amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say private citizens have a right to use artillery. Given modern firearms are deadlier than 18th century artillery, how is the second amendment to be interpreted? Isn't it arbitrary whether the weapon can be held or not? Isn't the destructive power more relevant? Though since 18th century artillery could not be carried and fired at the same time, it was not a firearm. Should the word "firearm" be taken at face value, or should it be put into context? The context being the speed at which the weapon can kill.
Jack Boot, "Artillery is not something that can be carried around by a single person to be used for personal defense." That is part of what I wrote. However, I'm not so sure about phasers. Imagine having the power of a tank in the palm of your hands. It's also likely possible to have a broad-field weapon. Imagine lasers killing 1000 people with click of a single button. There's no way that would ever be legal. There have to be practical considerations that supercede the second amendment.
6 Answers
- Mr. SmartypantsLv 72 weeks ago
The word 'firearm' doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment. The amendment uses the language 'to bear arms'. To bear arms DOESN'T mean to carry a weapon around wherever you go. It really means to go to war, to engage in a military operation.
The real purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow states to keep their state-controlled militias after we'd decided to go to a federal 'standing army'. State still wanted some troops local and under their control to put down small insurrections (like Shay's Rebellion or what happened Jan.6) and Indian attacks (which were still happening in the 1780s.)
The Supreme Court has always held that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit federal/state/even city govts from reasonable gun control. So yeah, you can't have anything over 50cal (and those are hard to get). You can't have a hand grenade or an RPG launcher or a fighter plane, etc. You can't have a machine gun or fully-automatic rifle.
- 2 weeks ago
I'm not certain, but I hope it covers the dial-a-yield thermonuclear device I've been building using an assload of old smoke detectors.
- Jack BootLv 62 weeks ago
No, it does not, and I already explained this to you, which makes me think you aren't even trying to understand what you're being told.
Artillery is not something that can be carried around by a single person to be used for personal defense. Hence the 2nd amendment is not applicable.
If the hand-phasers from star trek ever became a reality, they however would be covered.
Source(s): Yes, it says "arms." It also says "bear." You guys should figure out what that word means. - Anonymous2 weeks ago
It says, "Arms". It doesn't specify the size of those arms. But it would stand to reason that they meant whatever arms were deemed necessary to remove a tyrannical government. So it's a pretty broad term.
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
It doesn't say firearm, it says arms. That includes all armaments, up to and including nukes.
