User talk:2601:648:8402:530A:B491:848D:36EF:60D2

Is there something that might be added to this page that provides a ruling or other perspective on why the Second Amendment is not interpreted as allowing an individual the right to own any type of "arms". The amendment does not say specifically say "guns", but rather says "arms". Wasn't the intent to allow the citizenry to posses weapons comparable to the military? Thus, why are individuals not legally permitted to buy or possess any type of weapon that might be used in self-defense against other individuals or the government? More modern "arms" might include shoulder fired missiles or even tanks. Or, for that matter, jet bombers or even nuclear weapons. I'm not advocating this interpretation, just suggesting there should be some discussion of what "arms" means and why there are limits on types of guns, let alone other arms, are part of how the amendment has been interpreted.

Stevenrl (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)