Mrussel, now you changed arms (stated in the constitution) to weapon (stated in your post).
Im not going to look it up, but I believe the definition of arms would be guns.
Where does it state protection in your home only???
As for using the bomb as a example, if you were to admit to planning to commit a illegal act with your arms, as with the bomb, law enforcement would have to step in for the protection of the community (this is their job). There will be some restrictions to every right. You have the rights as long as you are not trampling over the rights of other citizens. (should be common sense, but not so much)
As for debating this issue, 48 of the 50 states believe citizens have the constitutional right to carry concealed (soon to be 49, WI soon I hope). WI has open carry, so at least 49 believe we have the right to carry. ( I dont know where ILL stands). Your argument does not stand.
Why do we have the freedom of speech in the work place, (saw it in the news, lawsuits because employees was fired for bad mouthing boss, emp. won) as well as place such as sherwin-williams, but not the right to bear arms, I believe someday this may change. Both were written on the same document. I believe the amendments were added ranked by importants to the country and low and behold, it ranks second, if it was not important why would it be at the top of their minds.
I does not state protection at all,therefore if you are to read only the literal words there,the entire issue of protection is left to the states,OR perhaps its something left to the people themselves. (if the state is silent on it?) You have a point that I have expanded arms to mean all weapons but I think its rather reasonable. If in the future for instance,advances in personal protection render firearms obsolete (body armor as thin as a t-shirt that can stop a 50 cal or personal force fields or whatever) and the weapon of choice,when a weapon is needed,is a startrek style phaser,I think that qualifies as an "arm". Similarly ,if the weapon of choice for self defense,or military and police work or what not because swarms of tiny robots or something I have not even conceived of,those are arms. I think arms must be interpreted broadly,just as speech is interpreted broadly. For instance, my right to stand there and burn an American flag,silently,in protest of some wrong I feel our government committed IS protected under my right to free speech. While I doubt I would choose to exercise it in that way,Im in 100% agreement that what is really meant by speech is expression and communication and for instance,burning a flag is very obviously a political statement. (if it was not,the very people who oppose it would not be concerned,THEIR whole point of their argument IS that the message offends them). I would certainly think that a Welsh longbow would be an arm,or a samurai sword. If you confine it only to guns,why not confine it only to black powder guns,or flintlock guns. Perhaps confining it to "small arms" might be reasonable,although there WERE private citizens who had cannons and artillery that were a critical part of the revolutionary war,so perhaps not.
That IS a good point,freedom of speech in certain private places IS upheld,so that certainly DOES set a precedent. However,there IS a point regarding how intrusive the speech is on others rights. We have to right to for instance stand on the street corner and distribute racist literature. However,at a university I attended they fired a professor for having white power and nazi literature plastered all over the walls of his office (and not in a historical context),because it offended students. They debated it at length and considered two questions. One,CAN they revoke his tenure and fire him from a legal standpoint. The lawyers said absolutely. Once that was settled they debated at length,SHOULD they fire him,as they were not concerned over the legalities as much as the moral and ethical issues of free speech. They decided and I think rightly so,that his right to his speech was out weighted by the students rights not to have to go to Gestapo headquarters to get help with their math homework,and that he would either have to remove the materials or be fired. He chose to be fired. Free speech in the work place then is not nearly as strong as it is for instance on public property. Its a balancing act,and of course carry laws must be too. As I said though,Im not so much against the laws we have here where we can carry anywhere,its just Im very cautious about telling people they HAVE to allow guns in their establishments. I guess the answer is,I cautiously support it,except perhaps in certain places. Churches here are a special case. Guns can be banned in churches with written warning and notice. While I dont like the idea of special rules for churches in general,I do see the point that they are a special case. It could be argued that some churches may take the position that carrying weapons IN the church may be incompatible with their religion. Thinking about it,forcing people to have guns in their establishments may be appropriate in most cases,and may be inappropriate in others where the nature of the establishment is such that other rights such as freedom of speech or religion are directly tied to them,and those in charge of those establishments feel that allowing guns inside would severely infringe on their freedoms. I see the point of for instance someone saying "My religion teaches extreme pacifism,even in the event of an attack and therefore guns should not come into our holy places" on the other hand,thinking about it,I cant say that the argument could apply to a sandwich shop,as there is little connection between serving sandwiches and guns.
I agree,the issue of common sense though IS in the eye of the beholder. I have 6 Mosin Nagant rifles in my closet. I will probably get more. I would assume,because you hang out on a gun forum you understand that they are in fact part of a collection. My mother asks me,"what do I need all of those for." I explained to her their history and how each was different and some used to be snipers rifles,and how some were made at one arsenal or another and how each had unusual features which was why I bought it. She said "Oh,they are historic." She understands now. On the other hand there are plenty of people that will see those and say that what I have is unreasonable. They will say Im "stockpiling an arsenal" When I tell them that I collect them,they wont beleive me. What they perceive is that I have 6 (or maybe 12 if I happen to be lucky and find some more good ones) identical guns for no good reason. They will say that common sense says that guy who buys 12 identical guns and puts them in his closet is dangerous. All of their friends will agree with them. They might even bring up cases where someone was caught buying 30 identical Beretta handguns in places with no restrictions to smuggle them into places like DC. Their point will be that common sense says that I have no "legitimate" reason for buying that many "identical" guns,that my "excuse" that I collect them does not hold water. I do have to say,if I bought 30 identical High Point 45 pistols ,and claimed that I was collecting them,it might be suspicious. Then again,maybe I think that there might be a national "saturday night special" ban and Im hoping old stock might remain saleable someday as collectors items when they are rare. (It may not be a good plan,but if really do intend that,then there is nothing wrong with it) The issue with common sense is,where do you draw the line,I can come up with a halfway plausible excuse to anything.
