The second amendment, more controversial today with the increasing potential deadliness of weapons and certain tactics, was intended to prevent the goverrnment from stripping its citizens of weapons and then establishing against their will a dictatorship or oligarchy of one form or another. In effect, the amendment has been interpreted to mean that use and in some cases possession of weapons can be regulated but not banned. Under the rights I have defined the rightful possession or use of weapons would fall under the right to pursue happiness or in some cases of self defense, the use of a weapon would fall under the rights to life and liberty.
Let us consider the possession of a simple rifle. The rifle itself is comprised of a mechanism to strike a primer and a rifled tube which constrains the expanding gases such that they must accelerate the projectile, and also sets the projectile spinning such that its angular momentum will prevent tumbling in transit and thus improve accuracy. This mechanism and tube, if only kept in a person’s possession within their home creates no violation nor threat of violation to the rights of anyone, and as such, cannot be outlawed. Ammunition for the rifle, on the other hand, contains a potentially hazardous quantity of high energy explosives. As long as such are manufactured properly, and stored properly, and not loaded into a weapon, then keeping ammunition in a person’s possession within their home creates no violation or threat of violation to the rights of anyone. As such, keeping of ammunition cannot be outlawed, but certain regulations regarding the safe and reliable manufacture, transport, and storage of ammunition to prevent unwitting violations of the rights of others (in case of a fire, for instance) may be imposed. I could go through and list all of the possible usages and means of carrying or transporting guns and explain which constitute a direct violation of the rights of others and which should be regulated due to having the potential to trigger unwitting violations of the rights of others, but you will find that my reasoning on such matters tracks closely with that of existing gun laws and regulations where such are reasonable.
Now let us consider the possession of a less standard weapon: a multi-megaton thermonuclear warhead. Setting aside any consideration of how such a device was obtained, there are many potential issues with the mere possession of such a device which must reasonably require regulation in order to prevent the unwitting violation of the rights of a potentially large number of people in the surrounding area. For instance, it is reasonable to make it a crime to be in possession of a nuclear warhead if the possessor has not been trained, tested, and fully certified in the maintenance, storage, transport, and safe operation of the device, because any possessor that could otherwise decide to perform some exploratory tinkering or unsafely transport the device could unwittingly violate the rights of a large number of people in the surrounding area. Furthermore, since an assemble-able and detonateable nuclear warhead, poses a credible threat to the lives of any proximal individuals that are aware of it, it is reasonable to make it a crime to be in possession of an assembled and detonatable or a combination of parts that could be assembled and made into a detonatable nuclear warhead except where such is done with the full and documented consent of any and all proximal individuals, and where once such consent has been obtained, signage has been erected all around the area to warn off individuals that do not wish to consent to the presence of such a device. Or alternatively, in large population centers, it could be reasonably presumed in law that such consent would never be obtainable, and as such possession of nuclear warhead could be presumed to be a violation of the right to life of others.
In summation , with my proposal gun and in a greater sense “arms” rights will be gauranteed by reason and therefore within reason.