The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic


PDA






JackBurtonJr
March 14, 2013, 11:25 AM
My latest article. Comments here or there are appreciated.

The primary task of the Amendment and an armed citizenry is not to “put the country back together.” It is to keep the country from an aggressive, overbearing government in the very first place. It is a preventative. A guard that wards off beforehand.

http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/Prophylactic

If you enjoyed reading about "The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Creature
March 14, 2013, 11:43 AM
Good article with an interesting perspective.

henschman
March 14, 2013, 03:14 PM
For a something to have a deterrent effect on human behavior, it's effectiveness needs to be demonstrated from time to time. It has been a long time since this particular remedy was invoked, and its deterrent effect appears to be waning. I believe several states have called what they thought was a bluff. It is time to show them that it is no bluff, if the 2A is going to continue to have its deterrent effect on would-be tyrants.

JustinJ
March 14, 2013, 04:44 PM
For a something to have a deterrent effect on human behavior, it's effectiveness needs to be demonstrated from time to time. It has been a long time since this particular remedy was invoked, and its deterrent effect appears to be waning. I believe several states have called what they thought was a bluff. It is time to show them that it is no bluff, if the 2A is going to continue to have its deterrent effect on would-be tyrants.

Are you saying that a small group of armed individuals should use their guns against duly elected government representatives to violently force political change in the name of stopping tyranny? Uh huh.

Creature
March 15, 2013, 07:36 AM
JustinJ wrote:Are you saying that a small group of armed individuals should use their guns against duly elected government representatives to violently force political change in the name of stopping tyranny?

Is that not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Or do you think the 2A is only preventative?

average_shooter
March 15, 2013, 07:51 AM
Are you saying that a small group of armed individuals should use their guns against duly elected government representatives to violently force political change in the name of stopping tyranny? Uh huh.

Actually, henschman didn't say it, Thomas Jefferson did.

AlbertH
March 15, 2013, 09:14 AM
JustinJ wrote:

Is that not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Or do you think the 2A is only preventative?
Some constitutional scholars would argue that the second amendment is a clarification of article 1 section 8 that deals with The Militia.

While some say that the Second Amendment is the U S Constitution, with out the original articles of incorporation and the other amendments, there is no United States of America, just a well armed lawless land

beatledog7
March 15, 2013, 09:19 AM
The preventative (aka deterrent) nature of a prophylactic is moot unless the adversary it is designed to thwart occasionally gets to see it do what it was intended to do.

When I was in Kosovo in 2002, the locals (Orthodox Christians and Muslims) were not killing each other, though they certainly had been before the arrival of armed force. They sometimes expressed their desire to see US and NATO troops depart, saying it would now be ok for them to do so since the fighting had stopped. The trouble is, as we have seen so many times, once the troops leave, the killing resumes. Why? The very presence of troops with guns keeps things in check. Remove that prophylactic, and the trouble that's been held in check is free to flourish again.

In the United States, the citizenry is armed, and that's not by accident. The Founders knew that arms are the ultimate preventative, and they knew that if one removes the lid from a box of cute, cuddly kittens, the cute, cuddly kittens leave the box. OK, so such kittens are a manageable problem. But what if the kittens were not so cute and cuddly? What if they quickly grew into lions and tigers hell-bent on taking over your household?

Armed citizens are only lid on the box of Government kittens. They claim to be cute and cuddly, only trying to help us lead easy and care-free lives. But they're really lions and tigers, determined to stand on our chests with teeth and claws bared.

Do we want them out of the box?

Creature
March 15, 2013, 12:10 PM
Some constitutional scholars would argue that the second amendment is a clarification of article 1 section 8 that deals with The Militia.

So logically it follows that some scholars would argue that it does not pertain to militias only; that is a individual right. It has been argued in the SCOTUS and found to be an indivdual right.

AlbertH
March 18, 2013, 07:59 AM
So logically it follows that some scholars would argue that it does not pertain to militias only; that is a individual right. It has been argued in the SCOTUS and found to be an indivdual right.
If the second amendment as written, was to be the law of the land, why weren't slaves and indians allowed to legally own the very weapons that the second amendment protects?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Blackstone
March 18, 2013, 08:27 AM
Love that word, a good read :)

Sam1911
March 18, 2013, 09:19 AM
If the second amendment as written, was to be the law of the land, why weren't slaves and indians allowed to legally own the very weapons that the second amendment protects?Albert, that's not a very good argument in that it would apply to the entire Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.

It took quite a while for every resident of the country to be recognized as an equal citizen, but that's a separate issue from any question of what the 2nd Amendment does for the citizen so recognized.

JustinJ
March 18, 2013, 09:24 AM
Is that not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Or do you think the 2A is only preventative?

The founding fathers did not write the second amendment so that a very small minority could use violence to get their way. And have no doubt, it is a very small minority who think violence would today be justified. In fact, those who advocate it do far more to hurt gun rights than preserve them.

beatledog7
March 18, 2013, 10:31 AM
The founding fathers did not write the second amendment so that a very small minority could use violence to get their way.

Correct! It was written to ensure that a very small minority (those in Federal office) could NOT use violence to get their way.

average_shooter
March 18, 2013, 11:37 AM
If the second amendment as written, was to be the law of the land, why weren't slaves and indians allowed to legally own the very weapons that the second amendment protects?

Because slaves and indians were not viewed as "people" at the time. Slaves were regarded as only 3/5ths of a person for census reasons, not whole "persons" or part of the general "people." One could argue neither were Caucasian women of the era. Or anyone that didn't hold property, etc...

Creature
March 18, 2013, 01:04 PM
JustinJ wrote: The founding fathers did not write the second amendment so that a very small minority could use violence to get their way.

Really? Why then did the Founding Fathers write in the Second Amendment? Did they mean a very large majority could use violence to get their way?

JFtheGR8
March 18, 2013, 02:28 PM
When speaking to those on the fence about gun control if they ask me why I NEED an "assault rifle" I tell them I don't NEED one and that is what the 2A is for. Then I let the irony sink in.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

JustinJ
March 18, 2013, 03:58 PM
Really? Why then did the Founding Fathers write in the Second Amendment? Did they mean a very large majority could use violence to get their way?

Pretty much, yeah, in addition to a right of self defense. The whole point of democracy, however, is so that the large majority can get it's way without needing violence. If that contract were to be broken, then it's another story. The constition does also try and balance the rights of the against the will of the majority. However, just because a minority disagrees with a policy that does not entitle them to try and take over and impose their will on the whole.

Tyrants are not defined by their policies alone. They are primarily defined by the way in which they gain and retain power. It is completely contradictary to have a democratic process if at the end of they day those who lose are entitled to try and take power by force.

average_shooter
March 18, 2013, 04:41 PM
The whole point of democracy, however, is so that the large majority can get it's way without needing violence.

It is completely contradictary to have a democratic process if at the end of they day those who lose are entitled to try and take power by force.

Ah, I think I see where things are breaking down.

JustinJ, the Founding Fathers did not set up a democracy, they set up a republic. There's a difference. The very fact alone that we are now a "Democracy" shows that we have devolved away from being a republic, and will continue to devolve politically until something drastic happens. It's the way most, if not all, empires in the past have come to their demise.

Blackstone
March 18, 2013, 05:45 PM
A democracy implies that the majority can rule over the minority, am I correct?

average_shooter
March 18, 2013, 06:05 PM
"A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

onibaba
March 18, 2013, 06:20 PM
"A democracy implies that the majority can rule over the minority, am I correct?"
Your definition is a correct one. So is this: Democracy = Mob rule.

Our Republic however is supposed to protect the rights of everyone. The majority is not supposed to be able to do anything that the individual is not allowed to do.

Example: If I don't have the right to kill or steal from you, neither can I confer that nonexistent right to the majority to kill or steal for me.

Just because the majority adopts a position, doesn't make it legal or just. The 2A is there to protect the people, individual or collective, from a tyrannical power, period.

Foreign or domestic, majority or minority, government or mob, doesn't matter. A quick look into the Declaration of Independence would reveal their motive for writing the 2A...

Vern Humphrey
March 18, 2013, 06:20 PM
Dead on. We have a right to keep and bear arms so we won't need arms against our own home-grown tyrant.

Strategically, this is called "the force-in-being." The possession of arms (or of a navy, air force, etc.) makes it less likely you will need them, since the mere possession deters attacks.

yokel
March 18, 2013, 06:37 PM
For a something to have a deterrent effect on human behavior, it's effectiveness needs to be demonstrated from time to time. It has been a long time since this particular remedy was invoked, and its deterrent effect appears to be waning. I believe several states have called what they thought was a bluff. It is time to show them that it is no bluff, if the 2A is going to continue to have its deterrent effect on would-be tyrants.

It's entirely possible to have an people that is armed and at the same time under the yoke of some paternalistic, overregulated welfare state.

Face it, the vast majority of folks who purchase guns these days are in essence just hobbyists, sportsmen, collectors, and recreationists.

We're not really talking about some Army of the People with unit cohesion and esprit de corps who are prepared to stand up for their country and liberty, even at the cost their life.

JustinJ
March 19, 2013, 10:09 AM
Ah, I think I see where things are breaking down.

JustinJ, the Founding Fathers did not set up a democracy, they set up a republic. There's a difference. The very fact alone that we are now a "Democracy" shows that we have devolved away from being a republic, and will continue to devolve politically until something drastic happens. It's the way most, if not all, empires in the past have come to their demise.

Except that a republic and democracy(representative in our case) are not mutually exclusive so if there is a "break down" in understanding it's elsewhere. We happen to be both.

Our Republic however is supposed to protect the rights of everyone. The majority is not supposed to be able to do anything that the individual is not allowed to do.

Example: If I don't have the right to kill or steal from you, neither can I confer that nonexistent right to the majority to kill or steal for me.

True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2013, 11:20 AM
Except that a republic and democracy(representative in our case) are not mutually exclusive so if there is a "break down" in understanding it's elsewhere. We happen to be both.
In this you are correct. "Republic" comes from the Latin "Res Publica" meaning "public thing." It means the people, not the King, own the country.

How can the people govern their country other than through some form of democracy.

True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?
And there you are wrong. The flaw in your argument is the unspoken assumption that somehow the right to bear arms is not al fundamental right at all, but some sort of a privilige which the government can grant or withhold at will.

JustinJ
March 19, 2013, 11:29 AM
How can the people govern their country other than through some form of democracy.

That statement(or is it a question?) is to my point. However, a republic does not have to be a democracy if that is what you are trying to say.

Quote:
True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?

And there you are wrong. The flaw in your argument is the unspoken assumption that somehow the right to bear arms is not al fundamental right at all, but some sort of a privilige which the government can grant or withhold at will.

Huh? How can i be wrong if i only asked a question? Regardless, whether or not guns are a fundamental right is a completley different topic than equal application of laws to everybody. That's awfully diversionary.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2013, 12:13 PM
How can i be wrong if i only asked a question? Regardless, whether or not guns are a fundamental right is a completley different topic than equal application of laws to everybody. That's awfully diversionary.
It is diversionary, but I'm not the one making the diversion.

Consider this,
Regardless, whether or not the right not to be raped is a fundamental right, how does that argument work against laws permitting rape so long as the laws are applied to all?

I have simply restated your argument, but applyed it in a different realm. Clearly, a law permitting rape would be unConstitutional and blatently wrong, even if it applied evenly to all victims.

Similarly, a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and blatently wrong, regardless of how evenly it is applied.

onibaba
March 19, 2013, 01:05 PM
double
tap
see below

onibaba
March 19, 2013, 01:07 PM
Except that a republic and democracy(representative in our case) are not mutually exclusive so if there is a "break down" in understanding it's elsewhere. We happen to be both.



True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?
The Constitution and our government were designed (originally) to do one thing. To protect the rights of the individual.

Granted, that concept has changed drastically, but thats it. Applying a law/provision/statute uniformly against everyone doesn't make it legal or right.

Example: Your neighbors (the majority) have no right to collectively tear down your house (the minority) just because they made an ordinance that you failed to heed.

Whether you voted for or against that ordinance, or you declined to vote at all, or the ordinance would apply to all brown houses equally, makes no difference.

The point of our government is to stop such transgressions, rather than to endorse them as it does today...

JustinJ
March 19, 2013, 03:08 PM
It is diversionary, but I'm not the one making the diversion.

Not to nitpick, but by basic rules of grammar "It" in the above statement refers to yoru comments so who else could be making the diversion?

I have simply restated your argument, but applyed it in a different realm. Clearly, a law permitting rape would be unConstitutional and blatently wrong, even if it applied evenly to all victims.

Similarly, a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and blatently wrong, regardless of how evenly it is applied.

First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.

The Constitution and our government were designed (originally) to do one thing. To protect the rights of the individual.

No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be. In addition, there was not one single author of the constitution with just one single motive. There were numerous men who negotiated and compromised until an agreeable draft was finally reached. The role of the federal government has been debated and changing since day one. The Jefferson vs Hamilton feud is a prime example.

It should also be remembered that the bill or rights was originally intended to only limit the actions of the federal government, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as such state and local governments had the right to regulate or ban guns at their discretion. Had the ability to change the constitution not been included there would be no 14th amendment and the second amendment would not apply to state and local governments.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2013, 04:02 PM
First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.
Which does not invalidate the proposition that even application of an unconstitutional law makes in no less unconstitutional.

onibaba
March 19, 2013, 04:03 PM
Not to nitpick, but by basic rules of grammar "It" in the above statement refers to yoru comments so who else could be making the diversion?



First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.



No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be. In addition, there was not one single author of the constitution with just one single motive. There were numerous men who negotiated and compromised until an agreeable draft was finally reached. The role of the federal government has been debated and changing since day one. The Jefferson vs Hamilton feud is a prime example.

It should also be remembered that the bill or rights was originally intended to only limit the actions of the federal government, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as such state and local governments had the right to regulate or ban guns at their discretion. Had the ability to change the constitution not been included there would be no 14th amendment and the second amendment would not apply to state and local governments.
Further debate from me on this would derail the thread from the original topic. Suffice it to say I'll concede to your varied motives (Jefferson / Hamiltonian) argument only.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2013, 04:17 PM
No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be.
The means of change and adaptation over time is spelled out in Article V:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
That does not mean, "Hey, the powers that be can put whatever interpretation they want on the plain words of the Constitution -- no need to go through any formal amendment process."

JustinJ
March 19, 2013, 05:38 PM
That does not mean, "Hey, the powers that be can put whatever interpretation they want on the plain words of the Constitution -- no need to go through any formal amendment process."

Yes, that's true. However, new challenges, new laws and new amendments can alter the way in which the existing ones are interpreted and applied. In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2013, 06:25 PM
In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.
First of all, that puts us back to the old, "The Constitution means whatever the people in power say it means" -- which means there is really no Constitution at all.

Secondly, the old "Nuclear weapons at the local gun store" argument is so tired and discredited that you might as well bury it.

onibaba
March 19, 2013, 06:33 PM
Yes, that's true. However, new challenges, new laws and new amendments can alter the way in which the existing ones are interpreted and applied. In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.
Your whole argument is based facts not in evidence. A faulty premise, that the 2A can be written out of the constitution by the powers that be.

When the contrary is in evidence. "That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... ...[The Government derives] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Meaning that these rights are given by the Creator not by the whim of government or the majority. The majority or the government may want people to consent and relinquish them, but they cannot take away something they never had to power to give in the first place.

This is codified by both the 9th the 10th amendments...

9) The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(The people can own and sell whatever they want at gun shows. Nuclear or otherwise...)

10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(The States can't take these rights away either. The People retain ultimate authority. We just choose to be ruled...)


Edited to add:

Being that they are given by the Creator and therefore inalienable, though they may be written out of the document by the major or governing class, they'll never be relinquish or erased from the hearts and minds of men. Men with freed minds will inevitably do what's right. Your argument means that the founders of this country (the minority) were wrong to declare independence, as the king outlawed their use of firearms, and the majority wanted not to upset the status quo (fear of retribution)...

JustinJ
March 20, 2013, 11:54 AM
Your whole argument is based facts not in evidence. A faulty premise, that the 2A can be written out of the constitution by the powers that be.

You may want to take it up with the founders given they did in fact include a means to amend any part of the constitution.

When the contrary is in evidence. "That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... ...[The Government derives] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Meaning that these rights are given by the Creator not by the whim of government or the majority. The majority or the government may want people to consent and relinquish them, but they cannot take away something they never had to power to give in the first place.

Are you aware that you are convoluting the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution? The inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence do not include guns.

This is codified by both the 9th the 10th amendments...

Your interpretations of the 9th and 10th are largely your own and well beyond the scope of this thread. If you truly believe it practical to allow the sell of nuclear, biological, chemical or other WMD's at gun stores then i'm sorry but you lack a grasp of the realities of the world we live in.


Being that they are given by the Creator and therefore inalienable, though they may be written out of the document by the major or governing class, they'll never be relinquish or erased from the hearts and minds of men. Men with freed minds will inevitably do what's right. Your argument means that the founders of this country (the minority) were wrong to declare independence, as the king outlawed their use of firearms, and the majority wanted not to upset the status quo (fear of retribution)...

What evidence do you have that the founders were not acting on behalf of the majority of the colonists? As i recall the signers were elected representatives.


Secondly, the old "Nuclear weapons at the local gun store" argument is so tired and discredited that you might as well bury it.

You just saying so doesn't make it so. By the way, i mentioned more than just nuclear weapons.
Kings, emperors and tyrants have long claimed divine "right" to rule. I'm not getting into a debate about the will of the "creator".

Vern Humphrey
March 20, 2013, 01:27 PM
You may want to take it up with the founders given they did in fact include a means to amend any part of the constitution.
Knock, knock! Amending the Constitution does not include re-interpreting it to say black is white and up is down.

JustinJ
March 20, 2013, 02:00 PM
Knock, knock! Amending the Constitution does not include re-interpreting it to say black is white and up is down.

That has absouletly nothing to do with the comment of mine that you quoted. If you read what i was replying to this is quite obvious.

Vern Humphrey
March 20, 2013, 04:45 PM
You just saying so doesn't make it so. By the way, i mentioned more than just nuclear weapons.
And your saying it isn't so doesn't make it true. In point of fact, it is possible to produce the most deadly biological agents in your kitchen. And you may recall a strange group in Tokyo manufactured nerve gas and released it into the subway system.

You can't outlaw kitchens, now can you?:rolleyes:

JustinJ
March 21, 2013, 09:02 AM
And your saying it isn't so doesn't make it true. In point of fact, it is possible to produce the most deadly biological agents in your kitchen. And you may recall a strange group in Tokyo manufactured nerve gas and released it into the subway system.

You can't outlaw kitchens, now can you?

I don't just say so, i make arguments for my positions.

Making any real quantities of deliverable forms of chemical and bio weaons(without killing one's self) is actually far more difficult than you probably think, hugely in part to very strict regulation of materials and equipment. The Tokyo attack would have been far worse had they used a more efficient dispersion method.

Do you honestly believe the nuts intent on mass murder who go on shooting rampages would not prefer to kill hundreds or thousands with more effective weapons if the means were available? And you seriously think such weapons should be sold on the open market at gun stores or whatever? I can't even begin to say how insane that is.

If, however, a case was heard in which the supreme court ruled that something like weaponized Anthrax was protected under the second amendment how long do you think it would take for a constitutional amendment to happen? The only question is how much, if any, of it would remain after.

Vern Humphrey
March 21, 2013, 09:10 AM
I don't just say so, i make arguments for my positions.
And the fallacies of your arguments lead to nonsensical conclusions like we should outlaw kitchens.

Making any real quantities of deliverable forms of chemical and bio weaons(without killing one's self) is actually far more difficult than you probably think, hugely in part to very strict regulation of materials and equipment. The Tokyo attack would have been far worse had they used a more efficient dispersion method.
Being a graduate of the CBR Officer's course, and having worked after retiring from the military on many projects, including working for the Army Chemical Center, I suspect I know a lot more about this than you do.

You can make the most deadly biological agent in your kitchen, and you can make nerve gas with readily obtainable agents. And there are plenty of efficient ways to employ it.

JustinJ
March 21, 2013, 01:24 PM
And the fallacies of your arguments lead to nonsensical conclusions like we should outlaw kitchens.

No, thinking my arguments lead to that conclusion is what is nonsensical.

Being a graduate of the CBR Officer's course, and having worked after retiring from the military on many projects, including working for the Army Chemical Center, I suspect I know a lot more about this than you do.

If you think it just takes common kitchen items to whip up a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons in an effecitve and deliverable form to perform mass destruction then it would appear not.

You can make the most deadly biological agent in your kitchen, and you can make nerve gas with readily obtainable agents. And there are plenty of efficient ways to employ it.

This is just internet urban legendry. Or maybe you know more then the scientists, medical experts, FBI agents, etc who contributed to the following report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns00050t.pdf

Do you have any idea how many people, from terrorists to just plain old nuts, would be making and employing such weapons if all one needed were a kitchen? It's ridiculous.

Vern Humphrey
March 21, 2013, 01:44 PM
No, thinking my arguments lead to that conclusion is what is nonsensical.
Can you repost that in English?
If you think it just takes common kitchen items to whip up a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons in an effecitve and deliverable form to perform mass destruction then it would appear not.
Since it has actually been done, it would appear I am correct.

What is the basis of your expertise in this field?
Do you have any idea how many people, from terrorists to just plain old nuts, would be making and employing such weapons if all one needed were a kitchen?
Despite your protests -- given this is a subject about which you know nothing -- it can be and has been done.

JustinJ
March 21, 2013, 04:57 PM
Since it has actually been done, it would appear I am correct.

Because a trained chemist made some Sarin gas in Tokyo almost 20 years ago(which was poorly delivered) you believe it makes you correct in saying that WMD's can be readily made in deliverable form with kitchen equipment? Um, no, hardly. That is the reason you are arguing that it is pointless to make WMD's illegal? Seriously?

What is the basis of your expertise in this field?

I've already cited an official report, drafted with the input of real experts in the field, that completely contradicts your position. Aside from another attempt by you at diversion, what does my background have to do with anything? Since you are claiming to have advanced knowledge in the field why don't you share yours. For example, do you mean to say that they teach how to make WMD's in one's kitchen in the CBR course?

Despite your protests -- given this is a subject about which you know nothing -- it can be and has been done.

Well, thank goodness nobody wants to do the US harm since all it takes is a kitchen to make weapons grade nerve gas in a form for effective delivery.

Makes one wonder why a terrorist would rather try to make an underwear bomb when it's so easy to make nerve gas as an efficient weapon.

Vern Humphrey
March 21, 2013, 05:40 PM
I've already cited an official report, drafted with the input of real experts in the field, that completely contradicts your position.
Riiiight -- from the Internet. So it must be the whole thing, including all classified parts, no?:rolleyes:



Aside from another attempt by you at diversion, what does my background have to do with anything?
It tells us if you know enough to know how little you know.


Since you are claiming to have advanced knowledge in the field why don't you share yours. For example, do you mean to say that they teach how to make WMD's in one's kitchen in the CBR course?
As a matter of fact, they do.

And among the projects I had after I retired was work with the Chemical Center which involved the Joint Readiness Training Center, where the US Army maintains a terrorist group that, among other thing, uses chemical weapons against units training there. Under the rules of engagement, we have to have a real, approved method of making our agents, as well as locating local sources of supply for the ingredients.

It is shockingly easy to make nerve gas.

yokel
March 21, 2013, 05:54 PM
JustinJ,

Don't you understand and appreciate that freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our fundamental rights are merely "political rights". If that is true, then politicians-- and the judges they appoint -- can abridge, alter or even eliminate them and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been reduced to just rotting sheets of antique paper, the quaint relics of a dead dream.

A biased politician or judge that is ideologically driven by prejudice and ignorance is one of the vilest and most dangerous of despots.

Vern Humphrey
March 21, 2013, 06:02 PM
Absolutely right, Yokel

And all the specious arguments in the world don't change that -- "The Constitution is a liiiiiving document." "You don't need a gun like that!" "If you let people have guns, you have to let them have Weapons of Mass Destruction."

fanchisimo
March 21, 2013, 08:44 PM
I think Timothy McVeigh would agree that you can make WMD's using available resources.

digsigs226
March 21, 2013, 09:30 PM
Face it, the vast majority of folks who purchase guns these days are in essence just hobbyists, sportsmen, collectors, and recreationists.

We're not really talking about some Army of the People with unit cohesion and esprit de corps who are prepared to stand up for their country and liberty, even at the cost their life.

While I don't disagree with you, I don't really see what your point. If you are seeking to disavow the importance of an armed populous because of a lack of cohesion I believe you are mistaken. Armies and militias spring up when the need arises, that grave time has not yet come, and I pray it never does. Common people with little prior training or experience can be molded into an effective fighting force, it just takes time, effort, and money. To ignore this is to ignore the impact of thousands of ordinary people who answered the call during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc.

There are those among us that love to exert power or influence over others. The human race has, and will always be this way. Tyranny is not extinct. The 2nd Amendment is just as relevant today as it was in 1791.

JustinJ
March 22, 2013, 10:16 AM
I think Timothy McVeigh would agree that you can make WMD's using available resources

Yeah, and try to order a ton of ammonium nitrate today and let us know how that goes for you.

Don't you understand and appreciate that freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our fundamental rights are merely "political rights". If that is true, then politicians-- and the judges they appoint -- can abridge, alter or even eliminate them and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been reduced to just rotting sheets of antique paper, the quaint relics of a dead dream.

What do you think would happen to our liberty in the aftermath of a large scale chemical or bio weapons attack had those weapons been legally attained? Hell, we lost a huge chunk of the constitution after 911 and there wasn't even a constitutional controversy surrounding the means of attack that the terrorists used.



Riiiight -- from the Internet. So it must be the whole thing, including all classified parts, no?

I see, so in spite of all the secret contradicting evidence they still went ahead and came to a conclusion opposite of yours. Considering which agency drafted the report that is even more ridiculous.

It tells us if you know enough to know how little you know.

Actually, while a pursuing pharm degree i completed my gen chem, organic chem and cellular and molecular biology requirements. So my ability to judge the feasibility of synthesizing nerve agents in the kitchen is a little beyond reading The Anarchists Cookbook.

I think Timothy McVeigh would agree that you can make WMD's using available resources.

Yeah, well call a chemical supply house today to order a ton of ammonium nitrate and let us know how that goes.

It is shockingly easy to make nerve gas.

Again, to make a sufficient amount in a form that can be effectivley delivered without drawing attention or killing one's self, no, it isn't.

Could one possibly pull it off? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Regardless, just because something is theoretically possible that means there should not be efforts to prevent it or that we should make it even easier by selling it in a complete weaponized form? That is completely insane.

Just answer this one quesiton for me. Do you believe it should be perfectly legal to sell weaponized forms of chemical weapons so that any person intent on mass murder would be able to walk into a store and buy them?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!