As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.
A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.
An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.
So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?
|