akuperma
“nd no in the US argues that the right to bear arms refers to anything larger than hand held personal weapons “
I beleive Reb yi’ds question is why not?
Here is the text:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think what rebyid means is that, if the right to bear arms is as absolute as many claim, why is it limited to guns? IT doesnt say guns. I have a right to own swords, grenades, anti aircraft weapons and nuclear weapons all of which are “Arms” (and bazookas, and grenades are both carried so even with your limited definition of “arms” I should ahve a right to those) Especially when you consider that many argue the reason for the individual right is to protect agaisnt a tyranical government ( i.e for the “security of a FREE state”) Well, we cant due that with just guns .