Hacker News Reader

>And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.

Maybe you were looking for someone notable, but I'll make it for you right now.

Just out of curiosity, does that extend to things like chemical or biological weapons?

I suppose such an interpretation would have the side effect of making literally any hazardous substance legal to possess.

The definition of "arms" can reasonably be limited to conventional arms, i.e. the weapon is controlled by a human and its damage can be targeted. Weapons of mass destruction and contagion are not compatible with the purposes of self-defense, defense of the nation, and protecting society against tyranny.

You're certainly more notable than homonculus2!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com