definition of "arms?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John G

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
566
Location
Western NY
Sometimes the debate over RKBA comes down to a definition of "arms." Antis point out that a literal reading of the 2nd amend. would allow civilians to own nuclear weapons. Of course, this makes us look like lunatics, and conjures images of streets filled with privately-owned tanks, artillery, etc.

Other than the impossible pricetag on such hardware, how do we shoot down this argument? I want to be able to defend our stance from every angle.

Thanks for the help folks!
 
This is frequently discussed on gun boards. Most agree that the 2nd Amendment is referring to arms that an individual can carry and operate himself. Crew-served weapons are the common divider. Although, technically, all military weapons are legal.
 
Gotcha. Is there any legal example where this is stated? Or maybe a reliable quote from a founding father? I plan to use this in a debate, and sources would be a huge help. Thanks again!
 
Can YOU use a nuke for an offensive or defensive purpose -- and survive?

Can YOU maintain a nuke so that it will not become otherwise dangerous or unserviceable?

Can YOU protect a nuke so that it doesn't fall into the hands of others with malevolent intent toward the U.S.?

Can YOU ensure that should you choose to dispose of or dismantle it that it or its components won't present a continuing danger?

A "NO" answer to any of those questions (and a bunch more in the same vein) means that the public has a legitimate interest in applying "reasonable restrictions" to your 2A right to own and keep a nuke.

In essence, the above is an example of the AG's and some courts' arguments for applying restrictions on your 2A rights.

What's left is what does "reasonable" mean? That's what the SCOTUS is for.... :rolleyes:
 
Blackhawk, huh?

John, back from the sushi joint. Mmmm, eel.

Burks v. State, 36 S.W.2d 892, 894 (1931) (shotgun with 12.5" barrel is a constitutionally protected arm);

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 168 (1871) ("the pistol known as the repeater is a soldier's weapon" and as such is constitutionally protected).

Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 473, 474 (1874) ("guns of every kind, swords, bayonets, horseman's pistols, etc." are protected arms).

State v. Bias, 37 La. Ann. 259, 260 (1885) (protected arms are weapons that the individual can "keep and bear." "When we see a man with musket to shoulder, carbine slung on back [Pat Rogers will like that], or pistol belted to his side, or such like, he is bearing arms in the constitutional sense."

State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 224 (N.C. 1921) (arms would not include submarines, aircraft or AFVs, but would include all kinds of small arms).

The current Miller test provides that the weapon must have some "reasonable relationship" to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. The weapon must be within ordinary military equipment or its use could contribute to the common defense.

However, this test is question begging. Name a small arm that is not used used in combat?

Arms=small arms. Constitutionally-protected arms include clubs, knives, swords, bayonets, pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, bolt action rifles, machine pistols and machine guns, inter alia.

Note that this test is for the Second Amendment. The RKBA is also based upon the right to self-defense under the Ninth Amendment. RKBA=political safety (via 2d Amendment) + personal safety (via Ninth Amendment).

HTH, let me know if I can help any further.:)
 
Wow. El Tejon is my new hero. :D This is exactly what I was looking for! I'm more of a lurker than a regular poster, as I was back at TFL, but I know that I can always ask, and the proper info will come flooding in. This is a great place for firearms knowledge.

Thanks to everyone who responded!:cool:
 
I can answer "no" to at least one of those questions Blackhawk asked when talking about a BB gun (other than the first). Sure, a BB gun won't turn my town into a BBQ, and the only "continuing danger it would have would be my lawnmower running over it. That being said, at what point do we start using those questions as a determining factor? What caliber is too powerful? 50BMG? 105 Howitzer? If we say it must be "shoulder fired"- then can I buy a bazooka or a "Javelin"? Who makes those rules?

With enough money, I could most likely answer yes to some of those questions. I'd presume if it were Bill Gates desire, he could finance the safety, maintenance, dismantling and employent of a small nuke- that is, if he could afford the radioactive material.

I personally would not be happy if my neighbor had a bazooka- I'd feel threatened and unsafe. But you know, that's probably what my neighbors think of ME right now, and all I have is some pistols and rifles. But if I had my way, I'd own automatic weapons, and probably a grenade or two. So who's right? How far can I take my collection of arms?
 
I suppose anything can be "too powerful" in the wrong hands. And isn't that the basis behind our argument, the idea that it's the person, not the tool?
 
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 691, 705. indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Marbury v. Madison. A law repugunant to the Consitution is void.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 175 (1939). In the absence of any evidence {Miller had NO lawyer to present his case in this appeal, and did not even appear in court} tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. {Anything and everything}

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."

State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
"We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
"The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
 
The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception
Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 26 December 2001 | Thornwell Simons


Posted on 01/02/2002 4:23 PM CST by 45Auto


Every time I get in a gun debate with anyone, anywhere, they always bring up what I like to call "the mystic nuclear weapons exception" to the principle of armed self-defense. The basic argument seems to be that since people don't have a "right" to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, then the absolute right to keep and bear any instrument of self-defense must be void, and hence it's perfectly legitimate to ban handguns, "assault rifles," sporting guns, water pistols, or whatever else. After all, "we have to draw the line somewhere," and because of the "mystic nuclear weapons exception," they tell us that our rights and principles can't be our sole, absolute guide. Or that's what they'd have us think; and a surprisingly large number of people, even many pro-gun activists, fall for this argument and agree with it. The argument is false, and I'm going to prove it so, permanently, right here and now. There is no need to abandon, invalidate, or move beyond our basic principles of the right to armed self-defense.

The place to start, of course, is by examining the right of self-defense fundamentally. In our western tradition, and in the Constitution, we derive most of our notions of "rights" from the philosopher John Locke, upon whose work the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were based. Locke bases his theory of rights out of property rights, specifically, out of the idea that adult individuals have the right to own their own bodies -- that is, that individuals have a basic right to self-ownership. That's why his basic triad of rights are the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" -- it all boils down to the central idea that individual people have a right to own and control themselves.

It's not a perfect idea -- for example, it runs into problems with children and the mentally unfit -- but as a whole, for adult citizens, it's a darn good rule to work by. More importantly, it's the centerpoint of our system of law, enshrined in the Constitution. So for all practical purposes, this is the system we have to work with.

From that basic idea, it's extremely easy to deduce a right to self-defense. "Ownership" of something may be defined, roughly, as "just control" over that something; and if someone owns themselves, then what that means in practical terms is that they have the sole right to determine what they do, where, and how, as long as they don't interfere with the ownership rights of anyone else (which, of course, includes other people's bodies, because the other people own those.) This is often referred to as the "non-aggression principle," and is the core of modern-day libertarianism. People have the right to do whatever they want with themselves, as long as they don't interfere with the just rights of others.

This principle has a corollary, though; if you don't have the right to interfere with others unless they interfere with you, then if they do interfere with you, you do have the corresponding right to interfere with them. If you didn't, you wouldn't have control over your body; the guy who's interfering would. Another way of phrasing this is that, because you have a right to own yourself, you have a right to assert that ownership: you can legitimately stop people who try to do things to your body that you don't want done to your body, presuming only that they were the ones who initiated the conflict, not you. This is generally summed up in "the right to self defense," and it's something most human beings, if not most governments, can recognize intuitively. People have a right to defend themselves when attacked. Most everyone can agree on that

The disagreement starts to come along with the jump from there to the next logical step, which is that if people have a right to self-defense, that they must also logically have a right to effective means and instruments with which to accomplish that self-defense. Thomas Jefferson stated this as the principle that "the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end," and he stated it alternatively that "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." In other words, you can't say that someone has a right to dig holes on their land, but then say that they don't have a right to post-hole diggers, and you can't say people have a right to self-defense, but not to own weapons.

If people have a right to self-defense -- and they do -- then they must have a right to own whatever the most effective, efficient instruments are with which to execute that right. That's why the wording of the Second Amendment specifies "arms," not flintlocks or swords or armored breastplates; the word "arms" at the time meant, roughly speaking, "personal instruments of offense or defense," that is, anything that an individual soldier might wear into battle -- armor, saber, gun, whatever worked. The idea was that the individual militiaman would obtain the most efficient and effective means for his personal defense that he could, all those individuals would gather together, and you'd have an efficiently, effectively armed army.

The Constitution even goes so far as to authorize Congress to grant "letters of marque" -- that is, licenses to owners of private ships to operate as warships; something that obviously presumes private ownership of vessels capable of acting as warships, so presumably private ownership of cannon and the like. (Something that is, interestingly enough, still perfectly legal; you can buy and own, and even fire, all the black powder cannon you want. Many Civil War re-enactors do precisely that.)

How this worked in practice is debatable; but that's the basic idea. Under the Constitution, people should have the right to own the best means of self-defense that they can afford.

All that makes sense as a general rule; but it doesn't satisfy the "mystic nuclear weapons exception," it doesn't give us a general principle to determine which weapons and instruments people can have and which they can't -- it doesn't really define what a "means of self defense" is. But it does give us a starting point. Since the right to own weapons stems out of the right to self-defense, then people must only have the "right" to own weapons that are an efficient means of self-defense. Ideally, we'd be looking for something that could only work against "bad guys," but that will probably be always beyond our science; for now, we have to leave that job up to the human brain. This means a few things: most importantly, it means that the weapon in question must be capable of use with discretion, that is, it must be possible to use the weapon only against aggressors.

If the weapon has any nasty side effects -- like inevitably killing innocent bystanders, killing the user, killing at random, killing people who happen to be in the same general area fifty years later (and are hence inevitably also innocent bystanders,) or some such similar flaw, then it can't be considered a "just" weapon, because its use would inevitably violate the non-aggression principle outlined above. For an individual armament to be an "efficient" means of self-defense, then, it has to be controllable by an individual; the individual user must have the capability to specify targets. Therefore we have our rule: people have the right to own whatever weapons they can obtain and use, provided that those weapons are of the sort which can be used without aggressing against innocents.

So that tells us what people don't have a right to; and deals with the "mystic nuclear weapons exception" along the way. There still remains one important question, though: we've settled what people shouldn't have, but we haven't settled the question of what they should. The other key thing to determine in choosing a weapon, besides efficiency, is "effectiveness" -- a sword is an efficient means of self-defense, in that it can be used with a great deal of discretion, but it is relatively ineffective in our world of full-auto rifles and advanced body armors.

The problem is that there are a multitude of self-defense situations, and a multitude of different individuals who are going to have different needs and requirements for their personal self-defense. A little old lady who walks her dog in a "rough" park might simply find a canister of pepper spray to be the best choice for her situation; a victim of an oppressive third-world regime might have need of a rocket launcher, to fend off the helicopters of the oppressive government under which he labors. Now, clearly, only a given individual is going to be capable of making this kind of decision -- no outside group, government, or organization is going to be capable of telling an independent individual what is and isn't an efficient, effective choice of instrument with which to defend themselves.

Furthermore, though, even if they could, there would be an obvious conflict of interest -- all those outside of the individual are, after all, potential aggressors against that individual. This is why the second amendment exists, and it's also why the fourth does, for that matter; the government is not only prohibited from infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear the generalized "arms," they are also specifically prohibited from searching your possessions, home, or person without just cause.

The founders weren't stupid; they knew that the first thing an oppressive regime tends to confiscate is the means with which to resist that regime, so they made it danged hard for that regime to regulate those means.

This results in a somewhat odd situation: under current American law and the Constitution, every American citizen does, to that extent, have at least a de facto right to own any weapon they can get their hands on -- because under the fourth amendment, the U.S. Government doesn't have the power to check and see what you have. This is good, because they shouldn't. As long as no one knows you've got the whatever-it-is, and you aren't hurting anybody with it, you should be able to have it and keep it. The problem comes when individuals start getting their hands on weapons that have no legitimate purpose as instruments of self defense -- the above-mentioned "terror weapons" that kill indiscriminately and which are not capable of use for the purposes of self-defense.

We have to leave the choice of individual armaments within the hands of the individual; yet there are some armaments which no individual, and at least ideally no government and no anyone, should be allowed to have (such as, for example, all of the "weapons of mass destruction," the nuclear and biological weapons, etc.) We've established that there are some things people shouldn't have, but we seem to be without means of assuring that they don't have them. With a little thought, though, this conflict can be resolved and shown false; and the solution, oddly enough, still manages to fall pretty much perfectly in line with the rest of the Constitution. Quaint as it may seem, operating out of our base principles tends to work, if we think about it.

The thing to remember is, again, the basic principle that people have the right to defend themselves against unjust aggression. If we operate with that as our starting point, and maintain sound logic, we cannot go wrong. The important thing to think about here is the word "aggression." What constitutes it? "The initiation of force" is one answer, but it doesn't really settle the question -- a slightly better answer is "the initiation of force or the threat of force." Another good way to look at the question, bearing that answer in mind, is that one should not unduly escalate the situation -- if someone threatens, you're justified in taking steps to cope with the threat. This is, of course, a matter of degree and response in kind; there's a far cry between someone who says "you better not be comin' round here this time tomorrow" and someone who shoves a gun into your back in a dark alley.

In the first situation, simply informing the aggressor that you're armed, and hence not someone for him to interfere with, might be the best course of action; in the latter, you'd be justified in shooting to kill, because you'd be dealing with a direct and immediate threat to your life. As always, the basic principle of non-aggression remains the guide. When we extend this to the consideration of "weapons of mass destruction" and other indiscriminate killers, then, the answer becomes obvious; the very existence of such indiscriminate killing tools is a threat to everyone. It's as if someone had a pistol that randomly fired at any bystander within fifty feet of the bearer. Such a weapon would be useless for self-defense, and on top of that, if the owner were so foolish as to inform those bystanders that he had possession of such a weapon, or if he were even to simply load the thing and carry it on his person, such an act would justify the taking of aggressive action by those bystanders against its bearer -- because it would be an immediate threat to their lives. Likewise, then, if an individual were to obtain a weapon of mass destruction -- a nuclear device, biological agent, or what have you -- and then were to in any way threaten to use same, or to in any way harm others with it or allow others to discover that he had such in his possession, then those others would be justified in taking action to defend themselves from same -- because he would be by that act taking aggressive action against them.

And, as I've outlined above, this is roughly the place where we find ourselves under the Constitution -- people have the right to own whatever they wish, and the government can't check on them or have any say in the matter, until they take some form of aggressive or threatening action against others, or give that government some cause to think they may do so. In the case of some weapons, their indiscriminate, inordinately violent nature makes their simple possession a direct threat against every other human being; and, hence, if someone does possess same, drastic and immediate action to eliminate that threat is justified -- something that is not the case with weapons that can be used with discrimination, such as firearms, knives, swords, and even such things as rocket launchers and grenades. All are clearly within the scope of personal discretion; they can be used against aggressors without threatening innocent bystanders, and hence their use or possession does not inherently justify the taking of action against the user or possessor by innocent bystanders.

Admittedly, that's not precisely where we are under all current laws; but those laws that have us elsewhere (for example, the "assault weapons ban") are deviations from our founding principles and should be abolished; should have been abolished already, for they are violations of the Constitution. There is no need in this debate to "draw a line somewhere," nor do we need to "adjust" the Constitution to deal with modern technology (after all, we aren't eliminating the First Amendment because of the Internet.) The line is already drawn for us, by the same basic principles that the "mystic nuclear weapons exception" is an attempt to invalidate. Despite the naysayers, the Constitution, and the philosophy which underlies it, is as valid now as it was at the Founding; and there is no more need to infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms now than there was then. There is no "mystic nuclear weapons exception" to the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and we have no need of laws that infringe upon our individual right to own any efficient, effective means of self-defense we can obtain. The Bill of Rights, amazingly enough, still works. Let's get back to it.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2149

This article explains my own personal position perfectly.
 
Marbury v. Madison. A law repugunant to the Consitution is void.
Click to expand...
That means absolutely nothing for citizens. It does not give you an affirmative defense in a court of law (consider that some judges have recently taken to banning mention of constitutionality in court proceedings). It does not give you immunity from arrest, imprisonment, or death. It does not do much of anything except get us all upset whenever we think about it.

To carry on the dismantling of blackhawk's criteria... :neener:
[blockquote]Can YOU use a nuke for an offensive or defensive purpose -- and survive?[/blockquote]
Yes, given the proper codes and any other necessary equipment to activate the darned things (and to set a suitable delay).
[blockquote]Can YOU maintain a nuke so that it will not become otherwise dangerous or unserviceable?[/blockquote]
Nope. I'd need some help replacing the fissile material when it's no longer sufficiently radioactive, since I don't have a uranium enrichment plant or plutonium-producing reactor in my backyard. Nukes do not magically become dangerous unless they're involved in massive explosions or ridiculously unsafe physical stresses (earthquakes, maybe smashing them with 18-wheelers, firing rockets at them, etc.)
[blockquote]Can YOU protect a nuke so that it doesn't fall into the hands of others with malevolent intent toward the U.S.?[/blockquote]
Nope. Neither can Russia.
[blockquote]Can YOU ensure that should you choose to dispose of or dismantle it that it or its components won't present a continuing danger?[/blockquote]
Sure. buy a ticket on an intercontinental cruise and dumb the thing overboard in deep water. What, I'm supposed to care about killing some deep-sea aquatic life? Probably a good idea to smash the thing up first, just to make sure none of the pieces is anywhere near critical mass.

I'd like to note that I can't guarantee a grenade or rocket wouldn't blow up at an inopportune moment if smashed or triggered with another explosive. Nobody can protect any weapons against theft. I'd posit that an extremely well financed entity could steal a nuke from the U.S. stockpile. 8 years ago Shawn Nelson stole a tank from a national guard armory and drove it around, finally flipping it over. This was one guy. One guy.
 
Most agree that the 2nd Amendment is referring to arms that an individual can carry and operate himself. Crew-served weapons are the common divider. Although, technically, all military weapons are legal.
Click to expand...

The founders used cannons on the British. Cannons are kinda heavy.

Anyway, here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20010801.htm

On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'

by Vin Suprynowicz

August 1, 2001

Signing himself, "M.D., Ph.D.," a reader I'll call by the initials D.H. wrote in recently:

"Dear Vin, I have just finished reading your book 'Send in the Waco Killers'. Congratulations on writing such an interesting and provocative book. I also enjoy your columns, especially those on U.S. drug policy. You were right on to castigate the oblivious public for its complicity in shooting down the missionary and her daughter. The whole drug policy travesty/ scandal is a major reason why I've moved to Canada.

"I have a couple of questions. In your book, you seemed to sidestep the question of what the Founding Fathers (may they stop spinning in their graves) meant by "well-regulated" in relation to militias. Also, if you permit private citizens to possess heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles as part of their 2ndA rights, as you suggest, why not nuclear bombs? Isn't it all a matter of degree? Or do nuclear bombs fit under the 2ndA as well?

"Keep up the great work."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I replied:

Hi, D.H. --

If you take a double rifle to a British gunsmith -- to this day -- and ask him to "regulate" it, he will ask not about government restrictions, but rather for what charge and weight of ball you want those two barrels "regulated." Those barrels are said to be "regulated" for a .45 caliber ball ahead of 70 grains of black powder if they will both hit the same target at a predetermined range (often, 60 yards) with that loading.

A "well-regulated" militia is one which is well enough practiced in the use of their weapons -- and accustomed to operating together in the field -- to be an effective fighting force.

Far from "sidestepping this question" (the victim disarmament gang only keep SAYING we ignore it -- it's a rhetorical trick, you see) I define the term directly at the bottom of page 424: "Well-regulated means well-trained ... in firing volleys, reloading quickly, and blowing things up. What do you think George Mason and George Washington were up to when they organized meetings of the Fairfax Country Militia in the mid-1770s -- trading ginger cookie recipes?"

Nor would the other Founders have told George and George, "You're only free to exercise your 'collective right' to bear arms by joining the uniformed mercenaries retained by the crown governor." Quite to the contrary, such "special militias" -- the 18th century equivalent of today's "National Guard" -- were a form of armed security the Founders specifically warned us AGAINST, insisting that the only guarantor of freedom was that "every man be armed; everyone who is able must have a gun." (Patrick Henry, who called this "the great object.") No, George and George did not seek the crown's permission to take up arms and form their Committees of Correspondence.

More importantly, I continually ask, both in my first book and in my subsequent writings, "If the other side wants to insist on the relevance of the non-binding introductory phrase, 'A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ...' let Janet Reno and company explain to me when and how and where I and my hunting buddies are SUPPOSED to go to practice our small-unit tactics with M-16s and a Model 58 or Model 60 Squad Automatic Weapon, the better to BECOME a 'well- regulated militia,' better prepared to shoot and kill the next tyrant to dispatch tanks against harmless civilians on American soil. We'll drive as far out into the desert or the woods as they like; just let them explain to us how we're supposed to legally practice such drills without being jailed for "conspiracy to violate the National Firearms Act of 1934."

The answer is that these scum are lying. For us to form "well- regulated militias," well able to resist federal tyranny or usurpation, is the LAST thing they want. Are they pestering Congress, asking the delegates to set sensible performance and readiness standards for the Michigan Militia and the Ohio Unorganized Militia and Arizona's Viper Militia -- standards which, once met, will allow these citizen militias to receive cargo planes full of free surplus Stingers and pack Howitzers from Washington, thus discharging Congress' duty to "provide for ... arming .. the militia" (Article I Section 8)?

They would shriek in horror at any such proposal. This "You forgot the militia clause, nyah nyah" mantra is nothing but a totally insincere Jesuitical posturing designed to get their chorus of bed-wetters nodding in unison as they were taught in their government youth propaganda camps, chanting "Right, no guns unless they're part of the militia, which really means the National Guard" -- that National Guard which the Founders warned us AGAINST, their warning term at the time being a "special militia," comprised of uniformed mercenaries paid by and loyal only to the seat of power.

Do those who insist "Now we have a National Guard so we no longer need a citizen militia" actually contend the National Guard is there to protect us FROM the government? Did the Texas National Guard race to the defense of the harmless and innocent Branch Davidians at Waco ... or did it loan its military helicopters to the federal killers, happily topping off their tanks and cheering them on their way?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for nuclear weapons, language is important. Look at your own words: "If you permit private citizens to possess ..."

It is not the business or authority of Vin Suprynowicz to "permit" private citizens to possess or not possess anything ... and I certainly wouldn't FORBID them the ownership of anything except stolen property.

So, for starters, you probably mean: "If the federal government permits private citizens to possess ..."

But here we run into the same problem. All federal lawmaking authority is vested in the Congress, and is the Congress authorized to permit or ban or allow or infringe the private ownership of arms? Actually, two provisions apply: In Article I Section 8, as mentioned, Congress is given power to "provide for ... arming .. the militia." It may give us arms. But may it TAKE away those arms, or any other arms?

No. The Second Amendment bars any INFRINGEMENT of the right to keep and bear arms.

A "power to allow or not allow"? Not there. Nor anywhere else.

Is it appropriate for the federal government to own nuclear weapons? That is to say, has any federal official in the military chain of command -- from Harry Truman on down -- ever been put on trial for merely having control over nuclear weapons?

No.

Therefore, shall we surmise the federal government and its agents have some proper and duly delegated right, power, or authority to possess such things?

If so, where did it or they get that right, power, or authority?

Fortunately, under our system of government, we know what the answer must be: The government can acquire no right, power or authority except those which are delegated to it by the people.

Can you delegate a right, power or authority which you do not already possess?

No.

Therefore: The American people, both individually and as a group, have the right, power and authority to own nuclear weapons. No other condition can apply, unless you submit that we now live under a form of government where all rights and powers start with the GOVERNMENT MASTERS, who then bestow upon us (their peasants and slaves) only those lesser and included rights which our masters wish US to have.

On page 414 of "Send in the Waco Killers," I cite noted federalist and friend of Madison Tench Coxe to the effect that "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

It was only upon the receipt of such solemn, written promises as this that Madison's proposed Constitution was ever ratified.

What does "unlimited power" mean? If I possess "the unlimited power of the sword," who shall limit it?

Is the nuclear bomb one of the "terrible instruments of the soldier"?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How seductive is the old siren song: "Come on, prove you're REASONABLE; admit you don't have any NEED for a nuclear warhead."

But once we start down that road, won't they also wheedle and cajole and nag us into stipulating that we don't really "need" a tank ... a howitzer ... a shoulder-launched missile ... a machine gun ... a semi-automatic rifle ... anything, finally, beyond an unloaded black-powder ceremonial flintlock with a plugged barrel that we're allowed to take out of the police locker only long enough to carry in the Fourth of July parade?

How would we respond if asked to prove we "need" to go to church or temple as much as twice a week? Surely once a week is enough, isn't it? How about every OTHER week? Can you prove you "need" to speak to your God in prayer more than twice a month?

The only way to win that debate is to refuse to enter into it: Freedom of religion is my RIGHT, and a right exists without any requirement that I prove to your satisfaction my pragmatic "need" to exercise it. In even ATTEMPTING to prove to you that I "need" to be able to go to church when I please, or to publish any column I care to write ... or to own a nuclear bomb ... I lose the argument at the outset. "Need" simply doesn't come into it.

"The right of self-defense is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society," sayeth Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King's Bench, in the late 18th century. If your enemy or oppressor has a bomb, then get yourself a bomb. "And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one," sayeth Jesus the Nazarene (Luke 22:36.)

Have you really read my chapter on "Demonizing the militias"? All those founding fathers -- re-read pp 412-418, for starters -- reassuring us that "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)?

Is that the situation that prevails today? Government officials cowering in fear that if they try to enforce "unjust laws" they'll be shot down by a civilian populace that's got them thoroughly outgunned? Then why did medical marijuana patient (and former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate) Steve Kubby have to flee to Canada with his family just last week to avoid being jailed -- doctors say his adrenal cancer will quickly kill him if he's deprived of his "illicit" medicine -- YEARS after a clear majority of Californians voted to OK medical marijuana?

That facts and rights and truths are inconvenient or "inconceivable" means no more than to say that to a prisoner of some dank cell on Devil's Island, running 100 yards in a sunlit field is "inconceivable." It defines the limits of your perception and your expectations -- your ability to VISUALIZE LIBERTY -- not the limits of the world.

Plenty of nuclear weapons ARE possessed by all kinds of people, including the kind that wear turbans. Government "safeguards" are a joke. Think no hijacker could get past the Fred & Ethel Mertz Security System down at the local airport if they really tried? It took Capt. Marcinko only a matter of minutes to penetrate the supposedly ironclad "security" at the American embassy in London -- right through to its ultra-secure "code room." He simply sent a man in a Marine uniform, carrying a clipboard, walking boldly in the side "smokers' door." Last week, the Justice Department revealed that the FBI has lost 449 sidearms and submachine guns -- one of which was even used in a homicide. But we're supposed to believe they've NEVER lost enough plutonium to make a bomb? Noooo. After all, they're not mere fallible mortals. They're "the government." We can "trust" them.

The only reason the Soviets didn't nuke Washington is that Washington would have nuked them back. What is the only reason Washington wouldn't nuke US? Because they're "really nice guys" who "wouldn't go THAT far" to hold onto power?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've said my right to bear arms is not DEPENDENT on demonstrating any "need." But I'll tell you one group of people that desperately "needed" a nuclear weapon: The innocent women and children of the Mount Carmel Church of Waco, Texas. If Uncle Sam spent most of the past 50 years negotiating with Soviet Russia rather than attacking them in cattle cars, don't you think Janet Reno's approach to a nuclear-armed David Koresh might have been a little more calm and polite?

Ditto the Florida relatives of little Cuban refugee Elian Gonzales.

Imagine it: Citizens well enough armed that our federal government would feel obliged to approach us with respect, ASKING whether we might be willing to help them out in a spirit of cooperation ... rather than busting down our doors, shoving German MP-5s up our nostrils, and asking questions later.

That facts and rights and truths are inconvenient is no excuse for turning our eyes away from them. If I have the skills to build or the money to buy one, I have a right to own a nuclear weapon, and so do you. How could it be otherwise? To say otherwise is to say I have no right to make myself a straw hat just because I have the straw, because the government has declared a monopoly for itself on hat manufacture, and I must first pay a tax for the privilege. This is like telling Mr. Gandhi that "making salt" was a British government monopoly. We all know where that got them.

And of any government which will not trust its own people with these weapons we need ask, "Then why should we trust YOU with them? Because you promise never to use them to cow us into servitude ... as you once promised, before Waco, never to use military tanks and armed helicopters against American civilians -- women and children -- on American soil? To enforce a mere $200 tax?"

Has the government in Washington City ever show any reluctance to use weapons of mass destruction against a civilian populace when it seemed necessary to get its way? Forget Nagasaki for a moment; Did Grant shell the civilian population of Vicksburg? Was he punished for wantonly killing those civilians ... or rewarded with his government's highest office?

No, D.H., it is not "all a matter of degree." Quite the opposite. Providing only that I don't use them to threaten, intimidate, rob, or murder other sovereign individuals, in terms of the right of government to infringe them, my liberties are not subject to being "weighed against the government's compelling interest in keeping people from smoking marijuana," or "weighed against the government's compelling interest in preserving the endangered sucker fish," or "weighed against the government's compelling interest in making sure little girls can go to bed at night without being frightened by the sound of gunfire," or ANYTHING ELSE. They are ABSOLUTE.

And the sound of rifles being sighted in on the 200-yard range is the sound of freedom.

It does not say "shall not be infringed, unless the weapon in question is really scary." They're SUPPOSED to be scary. The occupants of Washington City are supposed to go to bed every night, wondering if anything they've done today will get them what it got Charles the First in 1649, or Louis XVI in 1793.

To their oaths of office -- unless we decide to sweep those offices away entirely, as is our right at any time -- should be added, "And if this day you usurp the rights or liberties of the very least American, be afraid ... be very afraid."

Somehow, I doubt they're losing much sleep over my deer rifle. Do you think?

-- V.S.
 
Cannon should be included as individual arms. The Founders were well aware that ships commonly went armed with cutlasses, pistols, muskets and cannon.

Congress issued Letters Of Marque And Reprisal to allow privateers to take enemy shipping, especially in the War Of 1812. Some of the cannon on ships outfitted in the US were private. Some came from government arsenals. This law has not been repealed and some folks, me included, have suggested that Congress should issue Letters Of Marque to deal with terrorist groups.

Someone who owns a ship and arms it fits the definition of "keep and bear," in my book.

A good read about privateers is The American Privateers: A History by Donald Barr Chidsey.
 
Wow. That's all I can say, is wow.

Those are very powerful words above. Good thing we don't have "reasonable" speech control.

VISUALIZE LIBERTY
 
Last edited:
Since the subject is, at the base of it, a question of definitions and semantics, I feel that what Thomas Jefferson said on that very subject concerning the interpretation of the Constitution (including amendments) is most fitting. In essence he was the first to define the K.I.S.S. principle.
On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.
Click to expand...

In other words, "arms" means arms which a citizen can carry and with which he can defend himself, his family, his property and indeed his country. It doesn't mean a nuclear weapon, a hat with a Vulcan on top, an M195. A "well regulated militia" means a properly functioning militia which is made up of all able bodied persons who may be called upon to defend the Republic. In order to be properly functioning at an instants notice, the members called to action must already own and know how to use the "arms" mentioned.
 
In other words, "arms" means arms which a citizen can carry and with which he can defend himself, his family, his property and indeed his country.
Click to expand...

So shortly before the time the Constitution was adopted, the founders probably carried those cannons? Wow! Wise men, and possessed of super strength. I wonder if they had XRay vision as well?
 
publius, That's the article I was trying to find. Ol Vin's great!

Bottom line - evil people WILL have whatever weapons they can get their hands on. No law is going to stop an evil rich punk like Osama, or an evil maniacal dictator like Saddam, so what does an attempted ban on good people having WMD's get you? Dead or a slave!

Sarah Brady claims to be affraid of water pistols and rubber bands. How low are YOU willing to stoop for the illusion of "safety"?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
 
In order to be properly functioning at an instants notice, the members called to action must already own and know how to use the "arms" mentioned.
Click to expand...

If it were up to me (especially with all the taxes I already pay) I'd go to the nearest military fort and train on everything I could get my hands on. I'd probably never use one of my own guns or play golf again, cuz I'd be out driving Abrams, flying Blackhawks, and shooting 50 cal machine guns with every free moment I had.

But you know, I don't think I'm legally allowed to train on any of this equipment without joining the army. The hardware isn't stopping me from training- it's the people to whom I pay all these taxes.

... and by the way, I did try to join, but they turned me away since I have asthma. Am I to believe that even though I can pass a PT test easily, operate machinery and small arms, that I'm not "able bodied" enough to be in a militia to defend my town/state/country from invasion? Stupid Asthma.
 
Actually, the 2nd amendment was written back when people DID own their own artillery (heck, the US has used privately-owned cannon-laden ships at war).

Indeed, I've seen (non-gov/mil) cannon-shooting competitions on TV.

Even if there were no "ban" on nukes I doubt anyone you know would have one - they are somewhat expensive at the moment.

That said, any "ban" on nuclear weapons (given that they are 'arms') is in violation of the second amendment. The definition given of "arms" as non-crew-served is a copout by gunowners to dodge the question. Article 2 of the bill of rights does not say "crew served", and it was written back when they had crew-served arms. Today, nuclear talks are "arms talks". Note: Arms.

According to the US constitution, a ban on nukes would require a constitutional amendment to amend amendment 2 to exclude nuclear weapons.


Battler.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
keep and bear arms
2
Replies
28
Views
754
Justin
Justin
J
  • Locked
What Arms?
Replies
1
Views
374
javacodeman
J
2
  • Locked
Guns, Self-defense, and the Second Amendment
Replies
4
Views
648
Standing Wolf
S
S
  • Locked
Guns, Arms, Weapons, Ammo
Replies
5
Views
606
Carlos
C
M
  • Locked
thoughts on the word "militia".
Replies
24
Views
652
Aguila Blanca
A
Back
Top