Font Resize
The Second Amendment says nothing about guns, it refers to "arms." An arms control treaty does not control guns, it controls WMD, including nuclear weapons, so the English word "arms" indisputably includes nuclear weapons.
Therefore, if the Second Amendment creates an unrestricted right to own arms, then it creates an unrestricted right to own nuclear weapons. If, on the other hand, Congress has the constitutional authority to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons, then it has the constitutional authority to restrict ownership of guns. The Constitution either does or does not give Congress the authority to restrict ownership of arms. It can’t be both ways.
If gun control opponents argue that by "arms" the Founding Fathers actually meant firearms, they’re saying the 18th-century wording is ambiguous and misleading and its meaning is open to debate. But then gun control advocates can just as validly argue that by "a well regulated militia" the Founding Fathers actually meant the amendment applies only to members of state militias, not the general public.
Gun control opponents insist that a literalist reading of the amendment ("It means exactly what it says, period") is the only basis on which this issue can be decided. So, a simple question for them: does or does not the Second Amendment guarantee Americans the right to own nuclear weapons? If not, then the assertion that it creates an unambiguous, unrestricted,
Washington
