then why can't I have a bomb?

[76shuvlinoff]

Howdy,
I know I have read threads on this before but I am coming up empty with the search function (most likely using it wrong) I am looking for good arguments to use when someone says "... then I suppose you want a bomb or grenade launcher too.."

If this topic is not allowed, no sweat.

thanks,
Mark

 

[yugorpk]

In most states you can have a grenade launcher. Its an NFA regulated device called a destructive device and will cost you $200 transfer tax. You can have grenades . $200 transfer tax on each one and you need to find a collector who will sell you one $$$$. No company that builds grenades will sell you one. Not a law, just their insurance company telling them no. You could build one yourself on a form 1 but then you are going to have to comply with all the state and federal zoning and permitting laws concerning explosives manufacture $$$$$$.

http://www.autoweapons.com/photos16/feb/a243m79.html

 

[CoRoMo]

I am looking for good arguments to use when someone says "... then I suppose you want a bomb or grenade launcher too.."

Okay, so what part of that statement requires an argument? And on which side of the argument are you positioning yourself?

Not knowing what you are trying to say, argue, or accomplish, do you or don't you want a bomb and/or grenade launcher?

I've never had anyone say that to me. If someone were ever to ask me that, I guess I'd simply say, "Of course"!! I don't see an argument erupting over that question.

 

[Goosey]

Well, there's this:

" We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. ... Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. ... "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#25ref

 

[yugorpk]

Thats a common anti gun argument. we don't allow this so why should you have that equally as destructive thing . I think a lot of it may be misunderstandings of what you can actually own and not own. I remember seeing an interview with our esteemed Vice President one time and his argument on gun control was "Well, we don't allow our citizens to own machine guns, why should we allow semiautomatic assault rifles !" . Hey esteemed Vice President... You can buy a machine gun in most states in accordance with federal law.

 

[chopinbloc]

I can legally buy explosives and I believe that the Constitution prohibits infringement on any privately own arms. Moreover, making explosives is far easier than making a gun, which isn't all that hard in its own right.


I think we often fall into the trap of trying to make our position appear "reasonable" when no private ownership of arms is "reasonable" in the minds of authoritarian control freaks. Sometimes I prefer to just tell them "Yes, I do have a natural right to own military weapons." Own it. Make them take the offended position.

 

[yugorpk]

I can legally buy explosives and I believe that the Constitution prohibits infringement on any privately own arms. Moreover, making explosives is far easier than making a gun, which isn't all that hard in its own right.


I think we often fall into the trap of trying to make our position appear "reasonable" when no private ownership of arms is "reasonable" in the minds of authoritarian control freaks. Sometimes I prefer to just tell them "Yes, I do have a natural right to own military weapons." Own it. Make them take the offended position.

Belief systems don't really play into this. Laws and court rulings do.

 

[Skribs]

I think the question usually stems from "where is the line." Most people who think there should be a line are okay with weapons that can be used for X, but not for Y. Some people use machismo (i.e. use a knife, it requires more skill), others are okay with guns used for hunting but not killing people, or those they think are okay for self defense but not those that can rack up a high body count.

Note that I'm not saying I think there's a difference (usually what makes one good for one thing also makes it good for others), but that this is the mindset people have.

Let's take the example of someone who thinks it's okay to have a pump-action shotgun for home defense, but a semi-automatic rifle with 30 rounds is too much. While they're saying we need magazine capacities, I'm over here saying "well, why do we have to ban full auto?" Now, I'm taking something that they think is a bit over the line (semi-auto) and saying, let's step further over the line.

To make a point that there should be a line, they say "why not a grenade launcher?" The point they are making is that if I want a device that can be used to quickly kill a bunch of people to be legal, then would I be okay with other people having grenade launchers that might be used against me.

My response is "why not a grenade launcher?" It's the same, but with different tone and different context. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, and it is not about self defense. It protects those things, but what it really is about is defense against tyranny, particularly from your own government.

The people should be free to own what they want, and suffer the consequences if used incorrectly or inappropriately. That is freedom. That is what our founding fathers wanted - the freedom to make your own choices and be responsible for your own actions. If I want a grenade launcher, I should be allowed to get one. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to go to an appropriate range with one and have a blast (pun intended).

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Bombs are ordnance and not usually counted as arms. It has generally been held that the 2nd Amendment applies most directly to the latter and not the former. Bombs are more applicable to offense than to defense and are indiscriminate in the nature of their action. Guns, even very large ones, are under the direct control of the user. This isn't to conclude that a person interested in ordnance should not be able to obtain it if they desire; under very specific licenses and tax stamps a citizen may own bombs, modern cannon, grenades etc. But as things stand the right to arms under the U.S. Constitution is generally limited to weapons in common use of no greater than .50.

 

[stonecutter2]

Howdy,
I know I have read threads on this before but I am coming up empty with the search function (most likely using it wrong) I am looking for good arguments to use when someone says "... then I suppose you want a bomb or grenade launcher too.."

If this topic is not allowed, no sweat.

thanks,
Mark

When this attempt at a "gotcha" occurs from an anti, my usual response is, "I'm not talking about bombs or grenades, I'm talking about guns. Bombs and grenades are explosive devices which are entirely a different subject than firearms. If you want to wander down that path, hey making a bomb is illegal, right? But that sure didn't stop those guys at the Boston Marathon did it? Pressure cookers and fireworks, that's what they used. Legislate that into impossibility. No pressure cookers and fireworks - make that an amendment. Help keep us all safe."

 

[Paladin7]

That is a very common anti-2A argument and easily defeated. The problem with that line of argumentation is that the anti-2A person you are arguing with is fixated on the weapon and not the individual, as if the weapon itself causes crime.

The answer is...Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes PERIOD. So, what does it matter what a Law abiding citizen has? The problem is the criminal, who by definition, doesn't obey the law in the first place... I want criminals in jail, not out in society where they can ruin the lives of others.

Then it would be a good idea to turn the conversation back on the Anti, by asking what do they suggest we do to stop criminals from committing crimes?

 

[Skribs]

Bombs are ordnance and not usually counted as arms. It has generally been held that the 2nd Amendment applies most directly to the latter and not the former. Bombs are more applicable to offense than to defense and are indiscriminate in the nature of their action. Guns, even very large ones, are under the direct control of the user. This isn't to conclude that a person interested in ordnance should not be able to obtain it if they desire; under very specific licenses and tax stamps a citizen may own bombs, modern cannon, grenades etc. But as things stand the right to arms under the U.S. Constitution is generally limited to weapons in common use of no greater than .50.

I think you're trying to define your own terminology to make it so that it's okay to place arbitrary limits that do not exist in the Constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution that limits the ability to own cannons. NFA is what restricts common use to no greater than .50, except for shotguns, and that was written in 1934 - about 150 years after the Bill of Rights.

 

[DeepSouth]

I feel like I should point out that the most powerful weapon around when the second amendment was written would have been the cannon, (to the best of my knowledge) which you could buy then and still can

 

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

People asking that question should read Heller, which answers it.

The short version is that bombs are not commonly used for lawful purposes by civilians, and therefore fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

[yugorpk]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

People asking that question should read Heller, which answers it.

The short version is that bombs are not commonly used for lawful purposes by civilians, and therefore fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Except that doesnt change the fact you CAN own bombs, land mines and grenades etc. They're hard to get because they are collectible but if you have the money and can figure out how to fill out a few forms and pay $200 you can buy destructive devices in accordance with federal law. The bigger hurdle is going to be state and local storage laws. Explosives themselves are easier and much cheaper to get and use with the proper licenses.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I think you're trying to define your own terminology to make it so that it's okay to place arbitrary limits that do not exist in the Constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution that limits the ability to own cannons. NFA is what restricts common use to no greater than .50, except for shotguns, and that was written in 1934 - about 150 years after the Bill of Rights.

Skribs--that's my thumbnail version w/o citations of how courts have viewed the matter. I wasn't trying to apply my own definitions to the 2nd Amendment. I was trying to answer the question posed by the OP of how to respond to an anti throwing the 'why not a bomb' pitch at you. The NRA did a nifty little piece on this area about six months back in one of their mags. I personally don't see that the Constitution precludes a citizen from owning a neutron bomb---but in practical terms the courts have ruled differently.

 

[ATLDave]

They're hard to get because they are collectible but if you have the money and can figure out how to fill out a few forms and pay $200 you can buy destructive devices in accordance with federal law. The bigger hurdle is going to be state and local storage laws.

Right, the states can basically make whatever laws they want regarding them because they are outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. And if Congress wanted to change the NFA to prohibit them entirely (and the resulting bill was signed into law or a vet overridden), they could do that.

Thus, in some places, you can have a bomb, but it's at the pleasure of the government.

 

[yugorpk]

Right, the states can basically make whatever laws they want regarding them because they are outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. And if Congress wanted to change the NFA to prohibit them entirely (and the resulting bill was signed into law or a vet overridden), they could do that.

Thus, in some places, you can have a bomb, but it's at the pleasure of the government.

Which still has nothing to do with the rhetorical argument at hand. The question never was if you could own a bomb. The question was "Why can you own that gun when you cannot own a bomb. They both only exist to kill people " . The fact that you actually can own a bomb , even if it , like everything else, is regulated by the government. It is just that most people assume that you cannot own a bomb and incorporate that into their rhetoric to make their point. It is a rhetorical failure and it is the job of the person making the counter point in the debate to use that to his advantage.

 

[ATLDave]

We interpret the anti-gunner's argument differently. There are certainly some kinds of weapons, such as nuclear weapons or nerve gas, that NO, you cannot have no matter how many tax stamps you're willing to buy. They argue that this means that there are "limits" to the right to bear arms, and that the "limits" should simply be shifted to prohibit, say, AR's. If you argue that "well, you can own bombs," they can just say, "fine, nuclear bombs, and then you have to contend with their argument just the same.

But the problem with their argument is that the prohibition on owning nuclear weapons is not a "limit" on the right to bear arms at all. It is simply OUTSIDE the right to bear arms. It is not within the ambit of the Second Amendment in the first place.

 

[ROAshooter]

think you could get RCBS to make a reloading die for that???

 

[Skribs]

Skribs--that's my thumbnail version w/o citations of how courts have viewed the matter. I wasn't trying to apply my own definitions to the 2nd Amendment. I was trying to answer the question posed by the OP of how to respond to an anti throwing the 'why not a bomb' pitch at you. The NRA did a nifty little piece on this area about six months back in one of their mags. I personally don't see that the Constitution precludes a citizen from owning a neutron bomb---but in practical terms the courts have ruled differently.

Okay, I can understand this. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution was intended not to limit the power of Americans, but of the American Government. It was intended to be the binding document that guarantees Americans freedom.

The courts have completely butchered the 2nd Amendment with clauses such as "sporting purposes", "assault weapon", etc. This is not a good thing. It may the world we live in, but that doesn't make it good, and I'm not going to define my arguments for what the Constitution actually says based on misconceptions of the courts. What I do will follow the law (obviously), but my standard for what should be and what I will vote for is different.

 

[19-3Ben]

I don't remember exactly what the deal is, but I seem to remember there being someone who wrote a long paper about it and the Cliff's notes version was that the 2A says "Keep and bare arms."
Bombs/grenades, etc... are artillery, not arms. Arms only applies to guns.
Therefore, to connect the two is actually not intellectually honest.

It was something to that effect. I'm sure someone here remembers the source on this.

 

[Sistema1927]

Private citizens owned war ships and artillery at the time of our nation's founding. That is why the Constitution mentions "letters of marque and reprisal" in Article 1, Section 8. This was authorization for the owner of a private warship to conduct hostility against the nation's enemies.

There was nothing stopping a citizen with enough money from owning whatever armament they wanted. This shows just how much we have been infringed since that time

 

[cuervo]

I would always put things into the context of a militia member being called into action. He was expected to bring his rifle, and probably a base-supply of ammo, which would be the same as what a member of the standing army would have.

In today's context, it is a right to be able to have the same small arms, such as an M16 or M4, as a member of the standing army. The militia would not typically report for duty with a canon (or, I can only guess, some form of grenade) since he was not expected to be proficient with those items, as he would be a rifle or pistol.

 

[Skribs]

I don't remember exactly what the deal is, but I seem to remember there being someone who wrote a long paper about it and the Cliff's notes version was that the 2A says "Keep and bare arms."
Bombs/grenades, etc... are artillery, not arms. Arms only applies to guns.
Therefore, to connect the two is actually not intellectually honest.

It was something to that effect. I'm sure someone here remembers the source on this.

And what is it about the defense against Tyranny that limits us to small arms?

I would always put things into the context of a militia member being called into action. He was expected to bring his rifle, and probably a base-supply of ammo, which would be the same as what a member of the standing army would have.

In today's context, it is a right to be able to have the same small arms, such as an M16 or M4, as a member of the standing army. The militia would not typically report for duty with a canon (or, I can only guess, some form of grenade) since he was not expected to be proficient with those items, as he would be a rifle or pistol.

I have a couple things to say on this:
1. M-16s and M4s come in 3-shot burst and full-auto. These are regulated by the same law that regulates our ability to own explosives (NFA 1934). By the same law, the M16 and M4 are lumped with explosives. This suggests to me that whoever is writing the laws and has chosen not to change them in over 80 years thinks that they are in a similar enough category to be banned together.
2. If you're talking about any organized group, they'll usually have some familiarity with explosives in some way, shape, or form. It could come from someone who has military experience, demolition experience, or even just an enthusiast. If you're talking about someone who has a weapon and can defend his town with it, then there can be no expectation of what his training level is.

This sounds like the same thing I see in movies and TV shows all the time. Someone has a gun, and everyone asks "why do you have a gun?" If the person isn't known to be a cop, then they always assume just because he has a gun, that he's either a criminal or there's something bad that happened to them (or they're a redneck and almost always end up shooting someone when they shouldn't).

The assumption most anti's have is that the average civilian isn't trained in gun use, and if they are then they are obviously mentally ill. You're making a similar assumption about explosives.

I'm not saying everyone needs to have grenade launchers. I'm saying you should have the option to without government interference.