I believe that in the US that DOE owns all nuclear material while the NRC issues a liscenes for a company to have nuclear material in their possesion, hospitals, reatctors, fabricators, etc. So with this in mind I think a State would have to negotiate with both DOE and NRC before starting a wepons program.
There was talk at one point of using nuclear bombs for things like mining and digging canals and harbors. I can imagine an activity like that being entirely confined to one state.
Why would you doubt that? The amendment says “bear arms,” so I take that to mean that it’s talking about arms that can be borne. Not much of a stretch, really.
But you’re right, it probably could stand to be revised in light of modern weapons technology.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “bear”. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, even though the Trojan Horse was far too large to be carried by an individual.
I trust that the Constitution was not meant as a metaphor.
That was a Weapon of Mass Distraction, and thus doesn’t count.
The second amendment was largely written to ensure that the people could revolt should the government cease representing their interests. It would be very unlikely that they meant anything other than “to take up arms” when they said, “to bear arms”. Taking up arms against an invading force doesn’t literally mean picking up an arm and using it. It means using any and all military means to fight.
Until the Civil War, for example, it appears that anyone could own cannon. 2nd Amendment & cannon in the 18th century - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
There’s a bit more to it. The Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was passed as a balance against the strengthening of the federal government under the newly ratified Constitution. Under the new rules for example, the federal government could have (horrors!) a standing army, while the states were expressly forbidden to have them. The federal government was also given co-authority with the states to call up citizens to militia service. Some argued that this meant that in theory a tyrannical federal government could either use it’s authority to regiment society, keeping the entire adult male populace under permanent military discipline, or alternatively the federal government could order the populace to stand down and surrender their weapons. Without standing armies and before the development of professional police forces, calling up armed citizens was the only way the state governments had of maintaining order and security. And a federal power to disarm the citizenry would leave the states helpless against and dependent upon the federal government, as well as the whole idea rankling people who felt strongly about the freedom to “keep and bear” (today we would say own and carry) arms. So the Second Amendment was passed to expressly forbid the federal government from doing this.
Of course since the Civil War the states in fact have been helpless against and dependent upon the federal government, and the states don’t care anymore because they rely on a small group of professional and semi-professional men-at-arms to maintain civil order. Which is why the pro-firearms crowd now finds the state governments more of an obstacle than the federal government.
I thought it was a pretty good question myself. 