I'm guessing it's needed to get good moon shots or maybe animal shots

No one needs a high capacity SD card that can shoot more than 1,000 pictures!

I see that has a fully automatic burst mode, too!

Shall not be infringed. What part don’t you understand?

So nuclear, biological and chemical Arms in the hands of private individuals, then?

And that is the question. We do have to draw a line somewhere.

The line has been drawn.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes like self-defense, but noted that the right is not unlimited. The Court stated that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” such as military-style weapons or those with extreme destructive capacity.

United States v. Miller (1939): The Court suggested that the Second Amendment protects weapons with a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” implying a connection to common militia weaponry, not weapons of mass destruction.

Sounds good to me.

Yup.

Really? Are you a child? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are not considered “arms” due to their indiscriminate, mass-destructive nature, which far exceeds the scope of personal self-defense or militia use.

Really? Do you not know the definition of "arms"? Only asking because

arms -noun [ plural ] weapons and equipment used to kill and injure people.

I mean... it's reasonable to assume one would clue in, not need to look up the definition of "arms" just by simple virtue of the decades-extant colloquial term "nuclear arms race," isn't it? And last I checked, regardless of nuclear, chemical and biological arms' "indiscriminate, mass-destructive nature, which far exceeds the scope of personal self-defense or militia use," they're still arms. Sooo yeah, like you illustrated, the "shall not be infringed" thing isn't absolute, is subject to abridgement per D.C. v. Heller, U.S. v. Miller.

Hmmm, let’s see…I’m retired military after 22 years and have combat experience in Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, yes, I know what “arms” means. Also, stop with the semantics. I admire your confidence. Not your logic, but your confidence.

Do us both a favor and don't waste time with the but-muh-alleged-occupation-based-informational-authority gambit, some rando on the internet.

Obviously you didn't have a full grasp of the scope of the term "arm" prior to this exchange or you wouldn't have made the claim concerning nuclear, biological, chemical arms. And I've no doubt you really do know *now*.

That's fine; I get that you can't admire my logic what with just getting burned because you were operating on opinion-based interpretation rather than facts. Chalk it up to live-and-learn, remember it for the future and always double check what you think you know.

If you think there is no difference between small arms fire, and nuclear arms fire, no amount of convincing will ever change your mind. I have neither the time time nor the the crayons to explain this to you.

Seriously? You already got a big ol' taste of your own foot but you still want to talk breaking things down to crayons? Okay, I'll follow you down into the schoolyard juvenility: stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!!! 🤣

Because criminals have them .

What they have cameras? Tbh some of them do yeah, carry on

Not talking to you.

HA, took me longer than I thought it would

The right to bare arms is the right to be free

The second amendment is not just about the right to bear arms. It’s about the right to bear arms and for that right to not being infringed upon.

"bare arms"??? 😆😆😆

lol got em

Spellin nazis are easy

Oh, please. I knew the difference between "bare" and "bear" in early grade school. 😄

Lol

Hey, it was a pretty big thing on the beach back in the 1920s,,

Lol