Does anyone know if/how this applies to international airports(as is the case in this story) , and/or our coasts?
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/...
But then so many people turn around and say that they're fine with rights they don't like being infringed...
There are tons of people who have their rights violated every day and are given unjust sentences across the nation. The only remedy is probably the second amendment.
Citation needed.
That's what is so great about the second amendment. We don't have to argue over how much abridgment is acceptable because the amendment itself prescribes how much abridgment is acceptable.
"shall not be infringed."
How's that Militia going? Got any nuclear weapons?
EG: You can't own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. What this restriction does is create an [artificial] floor price on any fully auto stuff to deter casual purchase - to the point a completely ghetto MAC-10 costs like $8K-9K, but because it was made before 1986 it is good to go. (To be clear, as a multi-gun owner, I think this is a fair compromise between no regulations and no guns.)
Another: Unauthorized possession of a nuclear weapon is banned by multiple laws, not just one, for example. Also if your desire to attempt to possess or possess said nuclear weapon was coupled with the intent to use it, well, that's another felony layered on.
Not trying to be overly-pedantic, but when people say "will not be infringed" I translate that to mean handguns, shotguns, and rifles (up to semi-automatic). Anything beyond those definitions start getting into what I will concede are legitimate "weapons of war" (machine guns, explosives, biological weapons) which merits restriction.
In the US, anything bigger than a 50 caliber round is classified as a "destructive device". Also included in that categories are grenade launchers, artillery shells, and I believe technically nuclear weapons. Interestingly enough flamethrowers are not classified as destructive devices.
I think you have a very skewed view of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. "Weapons of war" is exactly the sort of thing it should be protecting. Ban handguns? Fine (under the amendment) - no one uses those in war (minus epsilon). I wouldn't be happy with it, since they're rather useful for self defence, but I could at least see it being justified. But short barreled shotguns? Submachine guns? Assault rifles? Anti-materiel rifles and RPGs? MANPADS, mortars and artillery? All those should be perfectly fine and dandy under the 2nd amendment, as evidenced by the privately owned warships and cannon around the beginning of the 19th century.
Yes, this means that it's been infringed a hell of a lot. Which is part of why gun rights groups fight so hard - give a little more ground, and there might not be any more to fall back to.
I have tangible reasons why I believe that fully automatic weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons should NOT be legal for civilian ownership in most cases (am open to someone appealing or stating their case -- eg I'm a weapons creator and wish to create weapons for the state).
As for why I think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover weapons of war - all the weapons of war - it was written following a successful revolution against an oppressive government, made possible by individuals already owning their own weapons. Oh, and Britain had tried to confiscate those, too. Yes, they wouldn't have anticipated the ABCs of strategic weaponry and perhaps those would be excluded, but almost anything below that has analogues in the 1700s. (And lumping automatic weapons in with atomic, biological and chemical weapons is kinda murder, arson and jaywalking IMO)
https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...