Gun Control and Nuclear Weapons

[ArgosTCS]

I'm all for gun rights, the 2nd Amendment, the right to defend oneself, etc.

That said, where should the government draw the line as to what an individual is not allowed to possess for these purposes? Firearms? Explosives (i.e. grenades, rockets, mines), armored vehicles, military aircraft, nuclear weapons?

If you do draw a line, which presumably you must, how do you choose where that line is in a rational logical way?

Put another way, if it's a sliding scale from a pocket knife to an ICBM, how do you choose where the right to defend/protect cuts off and other considerations supercede?

 

[Alphazulu6]

Naw... I think everyone needs their own AT-4 by the nightstand/under the bed. Its perfectly reasonable

 

[pdowg881]

Small one man portable arms? Maybe the standard infantry loadout of a US Army soldier? I've heard the argument that "arms" doesn't limit it to small arms, and someone said here that there was privately owned atrillery back in the day.

 

[billhilly66]

You can have my thermonuclear tipped ICBM when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

 

[nobody_special]

I've heard the argument that "arms" doesn't limit it to small arms, and someone said here that there was privately owned atrillery back in the day.

I've heard that argument also; but just because it was okay "back in the day" doesn't mean it's a good idea.

If Parker isn't overturned on appeal, then we may have won an individual right. But the courts will probably allow wide restrictions... I've seen many calls for a challenge to 18USC922(o) (the ban on automatic weapons), but I think that's misguided. The courts will probably uphold such a ban even in light of the Parker decision.

Ultimately there will have to be some middle-ground, compromise position.

 

[sacp81170a]

If you do draw a line, which presumably you must, how do you choose where that line is in a rational logical way?

Here's where I would draw it and why: I would disallow individuals from possessing weapons whose very existence and uncontrollability make them an inherent danger to others. This would include nuclear (radiation and fallout problems), biological (unpredictability of effect) and chemical (area of effect influenced by weather, persistence of the agent, etc.). These weapons all have effects whose distribution in time and space inevitably make them harmful to innocent parties (even in other countries), even if their release is accidental. A negligent or accidental release (or even inadequate or unsafe storage) of any of these weapons would harm innocents, no matter when or where they happened and regardless of the intent of the owner. This is a basic moral argument. These weapons are literally too dangerous to others to be allowed to remain in the possession of anyone but the government for overriding national security and sovereignty purposes.

The possession of all other weapons, up to and including aircraft with missiles, warships with conventional weapons, tanks, automatic and crew served weapons, is and should be protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[jlbraun]

From another post of mine:

Consider that it takes about 2000ft-lbs of energy to put a human down reliably (think deer rifle) Take the size of your government X, multiply by 2000ft-lbs, and that's the energy threshold of a single-shot weapon that an individual can't exercise the right to possess under that government. The US has 300 million people, of which 122 million voted in the last presidential election. Technically, that's our government - those that showed up to vote. Times 2000 ft-lbs, and that's 244 gigafootpounds of energy, or about 79 tons of TNT.

That's your limit. No individual citizen of the United States shall own a weapon with a yield greater than 79 tons of TNT.

Let it be so.

Also consider that setting the threshold for individual weapons at "that needed to kill the entire government" means that in a dictatorship... you necessarily must restrict all weapons capable of killing just one guy - ie. citizens can't own firearms!

Secondly, that means that in a democracy - the government IS the entire voting public, so we can own pretty damn powerful weapons without each one of us individually being able to topple the government.

Suddenly, this theory of mine is starting to make sense...

 

[Henry Bowman]

Welcome to THR! If you search this forum, you'll find this question discussed from every imaginable angle.

But for starters,

the 2nd Amendment, the right to defend oneself, etc.

The 2A is for much more than self defense (I note with praise that you do no mention "hunting"). It is primarily for defense against tyrants (enemies of the Constitution), both foreign and domestic.

where should the government draw the line as to what an individual is not allowed to possess for these purposes?

The government derives it authority and power from us -- the people. It cannot have any authority that we did not first have to give it. We have allowed the .gov to provide for the common defense and to raise and maintain a standing army. Where in the Constitution (from which the .gov derives all of its powers) did we delegate any arm to the exclusion of us, the people.

If you do draw a line, which presumably you must

Perhaps you presume too much... Keep in mind that keeping and maintaining a nuke in a safe and effective manner is very difficult and expensive to do. Perhaps Bill Gates could afford a couple. Still, any restrictions on the people keeping (and bearing) nukes is based not upon their enormous power, but on an individual's ability (or inability) to do so without putting other in actual danger.

If you use this as a starting point, the entire concept is easier to understand.

Ultimately there will have to be some middle-ground, compromise position.

Only if you start from the position that we must accept a compromise between what the Constitution actually says and what the antis/statists/etc. wish it said.

 

[Boats]

Letters of Reprisal and Marque would have been a logical impossibility under the Constitution if private individuals did not own their own weaponry and warships.

That said, privateering is pretty much a dead letter, both diplomatically and logistically.

I believe that the 2A phrase, "to keep and bear arms," with the object of it that of being able to provide effective militia service for the common defense and incidentally reaffirms a right to effective self defense, denotes man portable personal weaponry suitable to pitching in during some manner of armed conflict or providing security in the face of a common disaster where regular forces are overtaxed.

Even in the Revolutionary War, the militia was not showing up with its own artillery sections, or squadrons of frigates, the Continental Army and Navy were doing that. The militia was primarily an infantry oriented force multiplier more often romanticized than truly battle effective.

So the historical analog would be that there should be unfettered access to purchase, keep, and store, anything that is a man portable firearm. A select fire M16A4? A SAW with boxes of belted 5.56? An AK "wit da switch?" Yep. A .50 cal rifle? Yep. A Ma Deuce? Nope. A 9mm handgun? Yep. A Stinger SAM? Nope. An 82mm mortar? Nope. A flamethrower? Yep. (They're actually not tightly regulated).
A nuke? Nope. Items like a Ma Deuce, or a mortar tube and shells, or an anti-tank rocket would probably have to remain under some form of nationally checked control ala the NFA 34.

Most weapons systems with area effects, aside from any portability or cost issues, require specialized storage conditions and handling for their warheads and propellants. Such weapons, by my reading of the text and context of the Constitution, do not fall within the ambit of the 2A.

My take doesn't exactly comport with "shall not be infringed," taken to its extreme, but it does comport with common sense. I don't want my neighbor storing a Vx gas shell because it's his "God given right." He's too stupid to ensure it doesn't leak.

 

[Boats]

Actually, I revise my own opinion. Anything a person could show up with that is a vehicle mounted weapon (not trailerable) should be allowed without restriction as far as being kept.

Bearing such would be a muddier problem. I'd like to see someone bear a Ma Deuce without getting a hernia pronto.

I'd also remind people that privately owned artillery is quite common. I have seen live fire cannonades. Problem is that most every last such piece is a Civil War era piece or a re-creation of one.

Why someone doesn't own a 155mm howitzer is probably as much due to a lack of affordable shooting as it has to do with a lack of an affordable howitzer.

 

[nobody_special]

Only if you start from the position that we must accept a compromise between what the Constitution actually says and what the antis/statists/etc. wish it said.

True. And I'm not sure I like this idea at all. But what's the alternative?

If SCOTUS rules (for example) that the automatic weapons ban is acceptable, then that ruling will probably stand until or unless the entire government is replaced.

I know many posters here would greatly enjoy that, but it's not realistic.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Here's how I see it. All small arms = go (so, yay machineguns, handguns, SBRs, SBS, etc.). Destructive devices are fun, but as I have mentioned ad infinitum, I don't want my nextdoor neighbor (in my apartment) storing his RPG-7 grenades on the opposite wall as my bed. So, if you posses highly explosive or fragmenting, rounds, you should have a blast-proof safe to store them in. Bullets go "pop pop pop" when they burn and at worst will just add more fuel to an apartment fire. A pineapple grenade will take out a wall, ceiling, floor, and/or two. I'm not saying you can't own DDs, I'm just saying they should be stored responsibly, after all, you're not going to be using a grenade or landmine for home defense (at least in the case of an apartment dweller).

As far as higher-power items, like nukes, biological and otherwise... hell no. I don't even like governments owning them. Anyone who says that we the people have a right to own nukes makes the majority of 2A people look like a bunch of nuts.

 

[ArgosTCS]

I'm not convinced by the cost as an adequate deterrent model. 1) Suitcase nukes aren't nearly as hideously expensive to maintain. 2) A private citizen with any sort of nuclear device at his disposal is an unreasonable danger in any way.

My listing of the 2nd amendment among the things I believe in was just that, i.e. I didn't meant to imply that the 2nd amendment had anything to do with any of the other things listed.

Also, the fact that the government derives its power from us does not really have anything to do with the question other than to reinforce the importance of the question as directed at individuals. The question was where would we want the line to be draw and why would we draw it there.

The idea that it is limited to what one man can carry would seem to be reasonable, but, there again, a suitcase sized device can be carried by one man. As such, that restriction would need some modification.

Ironically, I'm in the midst of studying for the bar exam in Tennessee. Our state constitution provides a right to any citizen to own any weapon used for military purposes. If it weren't for the supremacy clause...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you do draw a line, which presumably you must, how do you choose where that line is in a rational logical way?

Show me where you see it calls for a line in "...shall not be infringed."

"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.

See how I "connected" the first and third, then the second and fourth clauses? It "connects" like this: The Militia is composed of armed people. Next, if it is "necessary to the security", then the right to those arms damn well better not be infringed!

In a war, it is conceivable that our military could be so far spread out that it would be necessary for We the People to answer the call for the Militia. I want to make sure we're the best damned armed force the world has ever seen. I like livin' and I like freedom. If you limit my arms, you put EVERYTHING in jeopardy. If you've got a "line" you are comfortable with, that's fine. Toe that line, but KEEP IT TO YOUR SELF! Just 'cuz you can't handle an RPG, or a tactical nuke, doesn't mean your neighbor can't.

Woody
_______________________

"I ain't kiddin, neither!"

 

[kludge]

I would draw the line at indiscriminate weapons.

I don't consider a hand grenade indiscriminate, however it is indicriminate if an accident could render it indicriminate, so proper storage would be required.

I don't think the founders expected the average citizen to be able to afford cannon and mortar, the most destuctive weapons of the day, but they were privately owned at the time, and they had no problem with it.

I don't consider cannon and mortar, or the modern equivalent, to be indiscriminate weapons, either. I'm thinking nukes, dirty bombs, mines, high powered explosives...

Of course almost any weapon can be used indiscriminately, and the founders have spoken about that situation too, in that the liberty of the whole and the individual overrides the desire some would have to limit such liberties to keep and bear arms .

The phrase "well-regulated" implies that the militia is subject to a higher authority, and use of such weapons indiscriminately must be dealt with swiftly and severely.

Which reminds me of this...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Quincy Adams

There is no way in heck that the founders would have banned military small arms/automatic rifles.

With regard to "hunting" or "sporting purposes", Gen.Washington was dismayed when some of the volunteers showed up with their "fowling pieces" and much preferred the "riflemen."

 

[gc70]

I've heard that argument also; but just because it was okay "back in the day" doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I have frequently heard that argument from anti-gunners, and more generally from those who embrace a "living Constitution."

Even in the Revolutionary War, the militia was not showing up with its own artillery sections, or squadrons of frigates, the Continental Army and Navy were doing that.

The Continental Navy consisted of 57 vessels over the course of the war.

"Nearly 800 vessels were commissioned as privateers and are credited with capturing or destroying about 600 British ships. Vessels of every size and description were pressed into service as privateers. At the upper end of the scale was the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston."

 

[JLelli]

I have always contended that the Second Amendment covers all conventional armaments (no biological, radiological, or poison gas weapons), but jlbraun's interpretation is good, too.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Just 'cuz you can't handle an RPG, or a tactical nuke, doesn't mean your neighbor can't.

Note, most people, including myself who made the RPG comment aren't against RPG ownership, I just want to make sure that the explosives are stored in a proper manner until such time as you need them. And as far as nukes go... can you store one in a safe manner? In a nuke-proof safe that is also sealed to prevent radiation from leaking? Also, just how many people in this world are actually qualified to buy/maintain/use a nuclear device? In the scenario you describe, what if my neighbor gets trigger happy? It's one thing if he does so with an MG or an RPG, but if he does so with a nuke or biological agent, that could spell disaster for thousands or millions of people.

 

[roguetek]

here's a curveball.

You can own anything you want.

-BUT-

you are legally repsonsible for any consequences of your ordanace storage and use.

Your Vx shell leaks while your on vacation and hurts someone? fine, we're gonna put you up against a wall and shoot you.

You use a grenade to take out a burgler, and get the pizza boy delivering next door as well? We're gonna shoot you.

the idea being that collateral damage and accidental discharge of area effect weapons be considered intentional. And punished accordingly.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Prince,

There is nothing unconstitutional about passing law that tells your neighbor when and where he may "play" with his toys.

Oh, and we are not nuts. We understand the reason why and the need for arms to be unlimited in the hands of the people. We've seen too many governments(people in government) go nuts with the arms they control. It's like anything else. You can do all the prevention you want, but without the ability to defend for when prevent fails, you're dead meat or someone else's villein. There is no room for timidity when it comes to this. How you choose to live your life has a lasting effect upon the freedom of your posterity.

To those who have a limited view on "bear":

"Bear" also means to 'bear up', or 'deliver'. If the amendment said "carry" in stead of "bear", that would be a different thing all together.

Woody

[p] "The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." ---Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994

 

[ctdonath]

The limit on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment.
YOU have a right to keep and bear any arms you like. Should you find your life threatened, you may use them against that threat appropriately.
HOWEVER...
_I_ have the same right. Should _I_ find my life threatened, I may use mine against the threat appropriately.

Standard weapons can be kept and borne without undue threat to others. Knives, guns, even grenades can be stored & moved without any viable chance of harm to others (freak accidents aside).
Even high-end weapons can, with some additional care, be kept and "borne". A loaded-up F16, M1 tank, even aircraft carrier really won't do much until deliberately manipulated, and even if accidentally fired won't cause all that much damage.

A nuke, however, can wipe out a small city. Everyone. A guy "cleaning" his nuke could erase portions of the map.
Chemical/bio weapons leak, people die. Lots of 'em. Was it Bhopal I'm thinking of?
The issue with these is that simply being in range places one at risk - so much risk that those inadvertently in range are justified in exercising their 2nd Amendment & self-defense rights to neutralize the threat.

Summary: you can't have a nuke because if you bring it within a mile of me I have the 2nd Amendment, RKBA, self-defense right to eradicate your threat to my life. If you can store it safely somewhere in a very large portion of desert you own, fine - but once you "point" it at someone by causing them to be in range, they have the right to disarm you of it ... with extreme prejudice.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Kludge? the term "well regulated" as it is used does not mean controlled. It means trained.

Argos? Do you wish to draw the "line in the sand"? Do you wish for me to? IF we allow a line to be drawn, SOMEONE has to decide where. Consider the fact that Hitlery Clinton may have the power to move that line after the next election.

I accept the fact that everyone has the right to keep and bear anything he can afford. I also insist that they are responsible for their actions with it. and any mishaps that occur.

 

[wjustinen]

Why?

Ultimately there will have to be some middle-ground, compromise position.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why Indeed!

We already have the "middle-ground, compromise" position laid out for us. It's the Constitution of which the Second Amendment is a part.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[ArgosTCS]

Well, almost everyone has agreed that SOME line must be drawn. Presumably, as a representative democracy, the one's to draw the line must be the government. They derive their power from us. Therefore, they are the ones with the line drawing power. (Assuming their is some protection within the 2nd Amendment for any line drawing.)

One of the problems with holding a person strictly liable for the damage caused by their superhazardous weapon is that it is a post facto fix. I could inadvertently launch my safely stored ICBM and the result could be the anihilation of an entire city AND the starting of an international war. Are you really willing to contend that the drafters had in mind the idea that any citizen had a constitutionally protected right to possess single instruments capable of unquestionably starting international mayhem? Obviously, they could not have conceived of a weapon as powerful as the nuclear weapon. But, if you are going to go with a textualist reading of the constitution, i.e. what did they mean at the time, the sole protection afforded would be that of the weapons known to them and afforded by them at the time. As soon as you are willing to make the jump to the second amendment applying to firearms that did not exist at the time, aren't you using the same sort of logic that proponents of the "living" constitution are, i.e. that the constitutional protections are different now because of changed circumstances? Also, wouldn't you then have to require registration of these kinds of weapons? If you didn't how would you know who it is you have to hold strictly liable?

You could try and make and argument that the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment when it was drafted was meant as a means for the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of government, therefore, as the weapons of the government have advanced technologically so to should the scope of the 2nd Amendment. As such, citizens should always be able to have the same technological tools at our disposal as the government so that the tyranny can be adequately opposed. Is it possible that weapons as potent as nuclear weapons call for a tempering of this line of thought? I fear slippery slopes as much as anyone, but, as my initial question suggested, it seems like something along these lines has to be necessary. Otherwise, any jihadist, drug lord, CEO, or corporation could legally purchase and hold a single tool capable of crippling entire nations. Look at what the mere threat of nuclear weapons have led to in both Iraq and North Korea. The second half of the twentieth century was dedicated to careful avoidance of this sort of armed conflict. With nations holding these sorts of weapons, the likelihood of their usage is fairly law. Put them in the hands of anyone with the jack to afford them, and their becomes a clear international problem.

At some point, public policy trumps the bill of rights. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you can't own or distribute child pornography, and there should almost certainly be a limit as to the extent of the 2nd Amendment.

As a brief aside, Senator Clinton being elected president would not de facto give her the authority, ability, or power to decide what the scope of the 2nd amendment is. The executive, though powerful, doesn't get to shape legislation specifically, and no one gets to enact (and see stand) unconstitutional legislation. That's party of the beauty of the three branch system that we have.