Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Nope.

 

Precisely.

 

So if there are no countries, what governments would there be?

 

None.

 

Yes, though via a constitutional amendment, not by bureaucratic decree.

This would be the proper way to ban NBC weapons and high explosives as well.

 

And you would be happy for human waste from other parts of the world moving next door to you?

 

Not past adulthood=age 18. I don’t see a problem with disallowing childhood purchase of firearms or booze.

 

This sounds like you don't think that there should be age restriction, but "IF" we have to, then it should be the same for both.

 

It's essentially the same argument I would have against unfettered rights to freedom of speech, i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded building or threatening to kill the president. We have deemed that these exercises of speech shall not be allowed because the potential harm outweighs the right to do it. Another example ...

In our criminal law, "conspiracy" to commit a crime usually involves some sort of legal action (obtaining weapons, for example) combined with speech (planning a murder), even though the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. We deem that combination of legal action and speech to be a criminal offense of "conspiracy to commit XYZ crime" for which one may be arrested, tried, and sent to prison. In this case, we have deemed that otherwise lawful action combined with speech shall be illegal, and there is near universal agreement that this is reasonable and constitutional.

In either case - yelling "fire" or committing "conspiracy" - we have deemed that allowing that conduct creates great harm, or risk of harm, that reasonable people agree outweighs the unfettered right of free speech or possession of weapons.

And so it is with regard to a Stinger missile which is capable of taking down an airliner. We may respect the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and as we do so, take into consideration why we citizens should keep and bear firearms. We may cite reasons like self defense, hunting, competition, recreational shooting, or collecting. We may do all of those things with firearms that fire bullets. Importantly however, it is reasonable to believe that the average citizen has no need to possess a weapon that can track and destroy an airliner in flight with a missile containing a high explosive. It is also reasonable and logical to believe that if those weapons were available to the public, inevitably, some of them would fall into the wrong hands, and, inevitably, eventually some deranged individual or some terrorist group would use them for that reason. To reasonable people, this risk of harm outweighs the argument of an unfettered right to possess a Stinger missile, especially given that none of our rights are absolutely unfettered.

Just imagine what would happen if some terrorist cell of a meager 5 people were to simultaneously each take down an airliner leaving New York, Miami, Chicago, L.A., and Seattle using Stinger missiles that had been originally legally purchased. In the aftermath of a catastrophe like that, any argument that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of citizens to purchase and possess Stinger missiles would sound and, in fact, be ludicrous.

 

What about the argument that this same scenario is possible with illegally purchased stingers?

 

I suppose it is possible if the Stingers were stolen from the military or from a weapons manufacturer. But the crime of stealing them is not related to the argument of a constitutional right to own them under the 2nd Amendment.

 

Yes. So, what? Some mass murderers went the political route. Can we ban government?

 

What do you mean they "went the political route?"

 

What about the argument that there are already legal weapons which can take down an airliner?

 

Within reason. You are not allowed to scream "Fire" or "there is a shooter" in a crowded building falsely without having some responsibility for the outcome.

 

What outcome?

 

The reaction other people have in reacting and panicking which often results in physical injuries.

 

Do you mean bullet-firing weapons? Tell me what you're thinking of.

 

And what if that outcome doesn't eventuate?

 

This:

 

Possible, but very unlikely. Take off and landing speeds of a 747 are 170-190 mph. Hitting a man-sized target inside the aircraft moving at that speed? Very unlikely.

The effective range of an AR-10 is around 750 yards. But that range is determined by testing the rifle and cartridge while firing at a stationary target, not one moving at 180 mph.

 

What if you fire a gun in a crowded city just because you want to and by some miracle no-one is hurt. Should that just be overlooked?

 

So you agree - you have no rational basis for your statement that the destruction cased with either weapon be "unbelievable".

 

So, you have no rational basis for your position that "it just makes sense", and then by extension you have no rational basis for your idea that the minimum age for both buying gun and buying alcohol should be the same.
Thank you

 

Yep.
As 7.62x51 ball (let alone 50BMG) is more than capable of going through both side of a steel car door, both sides of a standard police vest and the person wearing said vest, the thin aluminum of the fuselage and instrumentation panel of a commercial jet liner poses little to no issue.