Restricting nuclear arms and biological agents seems prudent. It would be nice to restrict chemical arms as well, but there is alot more chemical lab-grade equipment than biological or nuclear equipment, and is not as feasible as the other 2.
Nuclear, Chemical and biological weapons should not be restricted; They should be a death sentence for anyone who possess them, governments included. No person or group of people should have control of anything that can indiscriminately kill millions of innocent people by deliberate or accidental action.
The price we pay for RKBA is that sometimes innocent people die at the hands of criminals. But we're talking isolated incidents involving one to maybe a couple dozen people at most. Nukes, Chem and bio agents raise the stakes far too high, and it has been proven over and over again that human beings cannot responsibly weild such power.
Further, the purpose of RKBA is checks and balances in it's most primal form. Once again, when we elevate those checks and balances to the potential death tolls of WMD's, the deterrence argument goes right out the window. Our Ohio class subs with their Titan missiles have enough armament to destroy the entire planet several times over. We keep them to "deter" our enemies from using their really nasty stuff. But what good will it be once the earth is scorched? "We warned you, you'll listen next time"??? There is no next time. Furthermore, what if total destruction of the planet is what the opposition wants? Just as it is virtually impossible to stop the suicidal terrorists, how do you deter an enemy who wants to be destroyed along with everyone and everything else?
So yes, as much of a gun nut as I am, I truly do wish we could disinvent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
As for any and all other weapons, I believe in 2A in it's purest form. Civilians should be able to possess any and all weapons that the government can. Let's face it; The spirit of RKBA died early in the tweniteth century, when the government restricted civilians to small arms while it's weapon inventory continued to grow at an exponential rate. A couple hundred thousand armed citizens would be but a thorn in the side of our government if the powers that be went genocidal. AR-15's and .50 cal rifles up against M1A1 MBT's, F18's and precision guided missiles and bombs? What a joke we are today. The government needs to have a healthy dose of fear of it's electorate, and that can only happen if we are equally armed.
Now, do I believe in unfettered access? No. I believe that once you move up into artillery and explosives, it should be a "shall issue" policy once an individual has shown that they can properly handle and store such weapons. As I said in another thread, a ricochet with a 155mm training round is in a little different league than a ricochet with a .30-06, and so there is substantially more responsibility in using such a weapon due to the much increased potential for collateral/unintentional damage/casualties. Same goes for explosives; The inherent danger of mishahandling of explosives means that one needs to be qualified to do so. I really wouldn't want my half-wit neighbor storing 200 pounds of cemtex and a case of hand grenades in his garage right next to a can full of oily rags that sits just below his ashtray on the workbench. The qualifications for handling and storage of such weapons would not be arbitrary and open to interpretation by some obscure branch of government. It would be that the individual know exactly what the destructive capabilities of the weapons are, and the proper measures to avoid any accidents. The severity of punishment for violating safety proceedures would be directly proportionate to the destructive power of the weapon. Stiff and actively enforced penalties would make most people think twice about whether or not they can handle the responsibility; While we want our populace to be properly armed to defend against a tyrannical government, we
don't want people possessing massively powerful weapons without any knowledge of those weapons and their capabilities.
As for the arguement of criminals getting their hands on these weapons, I also stick to the true RKBA mentality that says if a person has proven that they cannot be trusted with weapons, then they have also proven that they cannot be trusted to roam free in society where they will inevitably acquire said weapons.
In summary, I want a level playing field, but one in which the field will still exist when the playing is over.
YMMV.
