So if I need a weapon to defend myself from the gubmint, and I'm allowed to own military weapons, then I need weapons actually capable of defending me from the government. If the Second Amendment really does guarantee the right to keep and bear military weapons, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a Davy Crockett Recoilless Rifle, which fires a W54 Nuclear Warhead:

I mean, if the government gets to have their own nuclear arsenal, why can't I have my own personal nuclear deterrent? Isn't it my second amendment right to take out several blocks of New York City with a nuclear device if I feel threatened by Bloomberg or the NYPD?

Don't I, as an American Citizen, have a god-given right to keep and bear my very own Nuclear Deterrent?

Or are there certain limits that we, as a society, should place on the arms that people are allowed to keep and bear?

And see, that's all we're talking about here. I don't think that the RKBA folks want me to have a Davy Crockett nuclear weapon. They already agree that there are certain weapons that people ought not have. They're just arguing about where we draw that line.

No one believes in the absolute, unlimited right to keep and bear arms anymore. Letting people pretend that they do is one of the reasons that we can't have a conversation about semi-automatic military style assault weapons.

Originally posted to Writing by Will McLeod: A Better World is Possible on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:17 AM PST.

Also republished by notRKBA, Shut Down the NRA, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.