In response to:

The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons

Steve of CA Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 1:58 PM
What about the right to own homemade nuclear bombs? Does not the 2nd Amendment guarantee this as well?
hboring Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 10:13 PM
It would be hard to "bear" a nuclear bomb.
hbowman Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 2:34 PM
Who cares? You can be assured that anybody who really WANTS one and has the MONEY to build or buy one ALREADY HAS ONE.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:12 AM
A right cannot logically infringe upon another right.

The right to bear arms cannot and does not infringe on the right to life, liberty, and private property. A nuke is a weapon of mass destruction, not nearly considered "arms" under the second amendment.
Frank391 Wrote: Jan 13, 2013 9:55 AM
A nuclear bomb is not an "arm". It's a bomb.
Magnafan Wrote: Jan 13, 2013 9:46 AM
Oh, come on. What American citizen can build a home-made nuclear bomb? We leave the horrendous mass killings of innocent civilians to government. Check the meaning of militia: citizens who keep their firearms at home and can gather to repel tyranny.

By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic "assault" rifles: nobody needs one. We’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.

"I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt," Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. "I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods...