[MicroBalrog]

Here's my answer to the 'nuke argument':

The RKBA is a subset of a more general right - the right to do whatever you please as long as you harm no one else.
Imagine I had a non-WMD weapon, say an RPG-29. It is conceivable that I would use it in a harmless way (blow up things on a faraway range, or shoot a bunch of KKK bikers attacking my neighbour)
WMD aren't like that. Every time a nuke blows up, it causes deaths of innocent men by the radiation and fallout - which is why they banned nuclear testing. So you have no right to own nukes - and so doesn't the government.
Not that I'm 100% sure that the gvt. should have nukes, too.

[Gray Peterson]

and the militia clause would mean that they could only possess weapons commonly possessed by a light to medium infantry soldier.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, the militia clause has little or no bearing on the right to bear arms. It basically says:
"Because we need a militia, we shouldn't infringe upon the RKBA"
Doesn't mean that all arms should be militia owned.
And you still have the right to own those arms no covered by the 2nd amendment, by virtue of your right to be free.

[Ian]

The utilitarian argument for private nuclear material ownership isn't nuclear wepons, but nuclear power generation. Let individual entrepreneurs own fissionable material, and we'll have cheap, safe, efficient nuclear power in no time.

I don't think the Constitution allows any flat prohibitions, including that of nuclear weapons. But there are more effective ways to bring that point up than by demanding an H-bomb. :)

[MacPelto]

I've had this conversation myself, and the fact is, the 2nd doesn't cover nukes at all. This is because nukes aren't arms they are ordnance. Arms refers to individual weapons; not cannon, not nukes, and not mustard gas.

A person who uses the 'nukes' argument to attack the 2nd is committing a logical fallacy of ambiguity, by trying to equate 'arms' with 'weapons'. Make them face their improper usage, and they'll have to argue the 2nd on more appropriate grounds.

[Battler]

Nukes ARE arms, hence the "arms talks" when countries talk about their nuclear arsenals.

Also, the constitution does not allow the FedGov to prohibit Nukes. They are forbidden from doing so, by the 2nd amendment (written in the days when people owned their ships with cannons) - which does not distinguish "soldier carried arms". Also, as pro-second-amendment argument would state, the militia clause explains the second clause, it does not restrict it.

To prohibit individuals from owning nuclear weapons would require a consititutional amendment.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, then we should d__n well have one!:D
Seriously, Isn't the first amendment limited in some way?
I think banning nukes is a reasonable restriction if ever there was.

[Marko Kloos]

I've had this conversation myself, and the fact is, the 2nd doesn't cover nukes at all. This is because nukes aren't arms they are ordnance. Arms refers to individual weapons; not cannon, not nukes, and not mustard gas.

Are you sure about that whole "arms" versus "ordnance" thing? Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Webster's defines "marque" as follows:

Webster Dictionary, 1913
Marque (Page: 897)
Marque (?), n. [F. marque, in lettre de marque letter of marque, a commission with which the commandant of every armed vessel was obliged to be provided, under penalty of being considered a pirate or corsair; marque here prob. meaning, border, boundary (the letter of marque being a permission to go beyond the border), and of German origin. See March border.] (Law) A license to pass the limits of a jurisdiction, or boundary of a country, for the purpose of making reprisals. Letters of marque, Letters of marque and reprisal, a license or extraordinary commission granted by a government to a private person to fit out a privateer or armed ship to cruise at sea and make prize of the enemy's ships and merchandise. The ship so commissioned is sometimes called a letter of marque.

It's kind of hard to argue that the Second Amendment doesn't cover "ordnance", if Congress can authorize private citizens to conduct reprisal operations against pirates or other non-governmental foreign entities. If the Constitution made provisions for that, it must logically follow that private citizens may own warships, cannons and all.

[MeekandMild]

Micro, there's a pretty large body of argument that says nobody should have nukes. Considering that government is a collective group of individuals then a moral absolutist would argue that what is wrong for an idividual should be wrong for a collective group of individuals.

For instance if it wrong for you to rape the woman down the street it is likewise wrong for the city council to rape the same woman. Indeed since the damage is greater it is arguable that it is more wrong for them to do so.

(In my personal opinion nuclear weapons, nuclear powerplants and the like should all be used only for the positive good of humanity and such use would only be proper inthe form of intersteller rocke motors to spread life throughout the local area of space.)

[MicroBalrog]

MeekandMild: I perfectly agree - but I hope you name doesn't tell anything about your choice in weaponry:D

[MacPelto]

Are you sure about that whole "arms" versus "ordnance" thing?



It's not impossible that I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure...




4 entries found for ordnance.
ord·nance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrdnns)
n.
Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.
The branch of an armed force that procures, maintains, and issues weapons, ammunition, and combat vehicles.
Cannon; artillery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ordnaunce, variant of ordinaunce, order, military provision. See ordinance.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]


ordnance

\Ord"nance\, n. [From OE. ordenance, referring orig. to the bore or size of the cannon. See Ordinance.] Heavy weapons of warfare; cannon, or great guns, mortars, and howitzers; artillery; sometimes, a general term for all weapons and appliances used in war.

All the battlements their ordnance fire. --Shak.

Then you may hear afar off the awful roar of his [Rufus Choate's] rifled ordnance. --E. Ererett.

Ordnance survey, the official survey of Great Britain and Ireland, conducted by the ordnance department.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


ordnance

Gun \Gun\, n. [OE. gonne, gunne; of uncertain origin; cf. Ir., Gael.) A LL. gunna, W. gum; possibly (like cannon) fr. L. canna reed, tube; or abbreviated fr. OF. mangonnel, E. mangonel, a machine for hurling stones.] 1. A weapon which throws or propels a missile to a distance; any firearm or instrument for throwing projectiles by the explosion of gunpowder, consisting of a tube or barrel closed at one end, in which the projectile is placed, with an explosive charge behind, which is ignited by various means. Muskets, rifles, carbines, and fowling pieces are smaller guns, for hand use, and are called small arms. Larger guns are called cannon, ordnance, fieldpieces, carronades, howitzers, etc. See these terms in the Vocabulary.

As swift as a pellet out of a gunne When fire is in the powder runne. --Chaucer.

The word gun was in use in England for an engine to cast a thing from a man long before there was any gunpowder found out. --Selden.

2. (Mil.) A piece of heavy ordnance; in a restricted sense, a cannon.

3. pl. (Naut.) Violent blasts of wind.

Note: Guns are classified, according to their construction or manner of loading as rifled or smoothbore, breech-loading or muzzle-loading, cast or built-up guns; or according to their use, as field, mountain, prairie, seacoast, and siege guns.

Armstrong gun, a wrought iron breech-loading cannon named after its English inventor, Sir William Armstrong.

Great gun, a piece of heavy ordnance; hence (Fig.), a person superior in any way.

Gun barrel, the barrel or tube of a gun.

Gun carriage, the carriage on which a gun is mounted or moved.

Gun cotton (Chem.), a general name for a series of explosive nitric ethers of cellulose, obtained by steeping cotton in nitric and sulphuric acids. Although there are formed substances containing nitric acid radicals, yet the results exactly resemble ordinary cotton in appearance. It burns without ash, with explosion if confined, but quietly and harmlessly if free and open, and in small quantity. Specifically, the lower nitrates of cellulose which are insoluble in ether and alcohol in distinction from the highest (pyroxylin) which is soluble. See Pyroxylin, and cf. Xyloidin. The gun cottons are used for blasting and somewhat in gunnery: for making celluloid when compounded with camphor; and the soluble variety (pyroxylin) for making collodion. See Celluloid, and Collodion. Gun cotton is frequenty but improperly called nitrocellulose. It is not a nitro compound, but an ethereal salt of nitric acid.

Gun deck. See under Deck.

Gun fire, the time at which the morning or the evening gun is fired.

Gun metal, a bronze, ordinarily composed of nine parts of copper and one of tin, used for cannon, etc. The name is also given to certain strong mixtures of cast iron.

Gun port (Naut.), an opening in a ship through which a cannon's muzzle is run out for firing.

Gun tackle (Naut.), the blocks and pulleys affixed to the side of a ship, by which a gun carriage is run to and from the gun port.

Gun tackle purchase (Naut.), a tackle composed of two single blocks and a fall. --Totten.

Krupp gun, a wrought steel breech-loading cannon, named after its German inventor, Herr Krupp.

Machine gun, a breech-loading gun or a group of such guns, mounted on a carriage or other holder, and having a reservoir containing cartridges which are loaded into the gun or guns and fired in rapid succession, sometimes in volleys, by machinery operated by turning a crank. Several hundred shots can be fired in a minute with accurate aim. The Gatling gun, Gardner gun, Hotchkiss gun, and Nordenfelt gun, named for their inventors, and the French mitrailleuse, are machine guns.

To blow great guns (Naut.), to blow a gale. See Gun, n., 3.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


ordnance

n 1: military supplies [syn: munitions] 2: large but transportable armament [syn: artillery, heavy weapon, gun]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[TheLastBoyScout]

This arguement was had multiple times on TFL, and I found the "Don't point that at me" line of reasoning to make the most sense. Basically that thought allowed everything BUT big bombs because there was no way that you could be sure that everyone was outside of the blast radius of a personal nuke at all times.


i.e. You want a smg, tank, artillery piece, if you can afford it, buy it, but don't position it in any way that would put innocents at risk. Basically don't aim it at anyone. However, bombs go off in all directions, so "Don't aim it at anyone" now means keep the blast radius clear at all times. Since nukes are really big bombs they would require huge blast radii to be kept clear, and since fallout can go anywhere you really can't have a nuclear weapon without it putting somewhat at risk through an ND.

[Chris Rhines]

It is possible to 'safe' a nuclear bomb in such a manner that it is in no danger of an accidental detonation; the closest corallary would be removing the ammunition from a rifle and locking it in a safe.

And although it may surprise some, there are a number of potential commercial uses for nuclear bombs, over and above simple research. This is in addition to the commercial value of mere fissionable material, in power generation, high-energy physics research, et cetera.

'Arms,' 'weapons,' and 'ordinance' are all synonyms. No objective difference. A nuke can be properly described as any of these.

- Chris

[Battler]

To "safe" a weapon you don't point it at any-one.

To "safe" a nuke, it has to be outside of range of someone.


Could someone please tell the politicians to call their Nuclear Arms talks Nuclear ORDNANCE talks, and for www.dictionary.com to change their definition of arms.

[Frohickey]

You could have the plutonium core separated from the spherical shaped charge. That would make it 'safe'.

I could see us militia members have the spherical shaped charges, with detonator/timers.

The President, or the state-appointed officers would have the plutonium core, along with the 1500lb lead box.

[R127]

I'm tempted to argue no one should have nuclear weapons, governments included. After all, it's really governments who are most likely to use this stuff, it is governments that have murdered more people than private citizens.

The trouble is that sooner or later there is going to be this thing, don't ask me what, maybe a an asteroid or glacier or who knows, but sooner or later it will be, and we'll need to blow it up, and the only thing that can do the trick is a nuke.

I am hard pressed to trust anyone, especially our politicians, with nuclear weapons. However, since we will need the bomb someday, and in the interest of non-proliferation, I can't really complain too much that it is they who have them.

In the interest of non-proliferation of weapons that threaten life on a global scale, I'm going to have to say that nukes probably shouldn't be privately owned. Right now there aren't too many people with nukes and they're hard to build. This is slowly changing and someday that won't be the case at all. At that point I don't think it will matter so much because terrorist organizations and rogue governments will be amply supplied and we'll all be in deep-dogpoo.

Just the same, there is no coventional weapon that is even in the same league as nukes or other true weapons of mass destruction. Short of wmd's, private citizens should be allowed the ownership of battlefield weaponry because sooner or later they will need it, and if they have it, well, it makes needing it a lot less likely. Kind of like how that worked for the English. It's probably not a good idea to tool around downtown with your main battle tank, there are practical considerations there and there will have to be some compromises, but there shouldn't be any prohibition if you have the money and room for it.

At any rate, we're talking about guns, and to a lesser extent maybe a grenade or mortar or two. Nobody is rally around the 2nd because they desperately want a nuke. There's this wrongheaded idea out there that if you support a general principle you also have to support that principle under the most absurdly extreme circumstance imaginable or you lose all credibility. The nuke argument is a strawman.