Embed Notice

@slothrop @djsundog

I have long argued that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment includes strategic nuclear ICBMs.

It says *ARMS*, not "guns".

I had a military guy go into rage hair-splitting, claiming that those aren't "arms" by some abstruse technical definition.

But I think it makes sense, and I argue this is the reason why a direct plain-reading absolutely does NOT make sense (which would be why they invented whatever sophistry he was attempting).