This seems like a good place to copy and paste one of my favorite articles by one of my favorite writers, the master Vin Suprynowicz. (
Source)
For the record, I agree with every word of this article.
But which arms do we have the right to 'keep and bear'?
M.C. writes, from somewhere on the Atlantic seaboard:
"I have noticed that you have frequently and passionately expressed your support for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. ... I have tried my usual method of moral analysis to determine the correct position on this issue. However, I find that I am always left with a seeming quandary, and I wanted to solicit your opinion on this difficult question.
"I start with a predisposition in favor of freedom and respect for the literal meaning of the Constitution. This leads inexorably to strong support for the principle of the right to keep and bear arms. However, when I extrapolate from mere handgun ownership up through rifles and automatic weapons and continuing on to mortars, howitzers and field artillery and ending with nuclear weapons, it seems crystal clear to me that a line must drawn somewhere prior to nuclear weapons in this progression. And yet, from a moral perspective, I cannot seem to find the principle that makes it a right to own a pistol yet illegal to possess a cruise missile.
"I assume that you do not advocate the unrestricted right to own weapons of mass destruction. If you do not, perhaps you can explain to me where you draw the line, and why."
I responded:
Thanks for your thoughtful inquiry.
Many gun rights advocates rationalize a line between the weapons which a common foot-soldier can carry into combat, and those which are "crew-served," and thus require the logistical support of a larger group of men to field effectively, such as Howitzers, fighter aircraft, and, yes, nuclear weapons.
Thus, they tell us they believe the Second Amendment grants "the people" the right to own rifles, possibly up to the size of a Browning 30-caliber machine gun, which one person could conceivably carry and use in combat. This argument would also have to "allow" the citizen the use of a small mortar, but not of a wheeled 57-mm gun, etc.
An embarrassed silence usually ensues when you ask about the shoulder-launched, heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile. Clearly, single Afghan "militiamen" used such weapons quite effectively against Russian Hind helicopters, but many folks get queasy about the obvious implication that some kind of "White supremacist Aryan Nation militia nut" might thus be granted the unrestricted right to take aim at any government helicopter that hies into view near his "compound."
The other approach -- common among the savvier Libertarian political candidates, is to sidestep the issue with some kind of dismissive joke, indicating, "I'll be happy when everyone can own a handgun and an M-16; we won't be campaigning on personal ownership of atomic weapons THIS year, ha ha ha."
The problem with both approaches, as usual, if that the attempt to temper, moderate, or compromise the "principle" with whatever seems "pragmatically acceptable," only draws attention to the "fudge factor."
Like you, I don't get it. All such distinctions are arbitrary. In fact, single soldiers -- admittedly not the (start ital)average(end ital) infantryman, but specially-tasked SEALS and the like -- are widely believed to have already carried nuclear devices in their backpacks, on special covert missions overseas. So the whole rationale of what can be "handled by a single man" will shortly collapse.
The main point is this: The federal government has no powers, except those delegated to it by the people. I cannot delegate a power which is not already mine. So how can I delegate to the government the power to build, possess, deploy, yes and even use, nuclear weapons, if I, as an INDIVIDUAL American, do not possess that right, PRIOR to its delegation to government?
(Nor do I fully give up a power, when I delegate it. We each retain the right to make a citizen's arrest of a fleeing felon, even though we generally delegate this job to the police.)
Mr. Madison, and others of the Founders, said the whole idea of maintaining an armed populace is so that any potential tyrant would confront a body of the common folk, able to rise up and field a force BETTER armed and equipped than the federal government. If the 82nd Airborne (under orders from some would-be dictator) descended on your town today, they would have small howitzers, 50-caliber machine guns, Kevlar vests, CS gas with protective masks and suits, and so on. To defeat them, the people would need ready access to the same stuff.
Thus in a PRAGMATIC sense, as well as in principle, individual Americans not only can, but must, possess and be able to quickly and knowledgably use in their own defense, any type of weapon which they can manufacture or purchase.
