How to shut down the liberals "2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes" argument

[joab]

Because that, my friends, is called a diversion. If they can get you on a tangent trying to explain how and why Joe Sixpack can have a MIRV in his shed then you've lost the debate already.

Exactly

 

[sacp81170a]

So, let's start polishing our arguments without resorting to debating whether nook-you-lar weapons are covered. Because that, my friends, is called a diversion. If they can get you on a tangent trying to explain how and why Joe Sixpack can have a MIRV in his shed then you've lost the debate already.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! NUKES ARE A RED HERRING! Don't fall for it! Any WMD is a red herring! Don't fall for it! The subject is moot as far as our fight against repressive legislation is concerned!

 

[Big45]

I wish I had a tac nuke actually. Fairly certain I wouldn't get Waco'd or Ruby Ridge'd anytime soon.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Assuming we win the individual right part, the next step will be horsetrading over the "reasonable restrictions" part. And I guarantee they will place restrictions on it.

If there are to be "reasonable restrictions" placed upon the RKBA, Congress has to do it. Congress makes law, not the Court. Whatever Congress infringes the right with, we can challenge in court. That's how it works.

I wish I had a tac nuke actually. Fairly certain I wouldn't get Waco'd or Ruby Ridge'd anytime soon.

That's the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, isn't it.

Woody

Those of us who are armed stand in the way of something terrible. I don't know what it is, but it is damned scared of us. Let's keep the fear in its heart, not ours. B.E. Wood

 

[Smeg]

It's very easy to disarm that statement.

The wording is very explicit: "...right to keep and bear arms..."

There were 2 categories of weapons when the Bill of Rights was drafted: arms and ordnance.

Cannons and the like = ordnance, guns = arms.

We don't have cannons any more, but we do have rocket launchers, bombs, grenades, nukes, etc. etc. These would all be considered ordnance, which we are not entitled to keep.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

[size=+2]ALL[/size] weapons are arms. Not all arms are weapons. Arms includes armor. All ordnance are arms. Not all arms are ordnance. "Arms" is the big kahuna here, not "weapons" or "ordnance".

From Johnson's Dictionary, 1755:

Arms = Weapons of offense, or armour of defense.

Ordnance = A cannon

Cannon =

1. A great gun for battery

2. A gun larger than can be managed by hand.​

Gun = The general name for firearms; the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire.

Firearms = Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns.​

There you have it, from the time the Constitution was written, the full circle of that which are arms.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[TwitchALot]

There were 2 categories of weapons when the Bill of Rights was drafted: arms and ordnance.

Cannons and the like = ordnance, guns = arms.

We don't have cannons any more, but we do have rocket launchers, bombs, grenades, nukes, etc. etc. These would all be considered ordnance, which we are not entitled to keep.

Again, I would like evidence of this.

ALL weapons are arms. Not all arms are weapons. Arms includes armor. All ordnance are arms. Not all arms are ordnance. "Arms" is the big kahuna here, not "weapons" or "ordnance".

From Johnson's Dictionary, 1755:

Arms = Weapons of offense, or armour of defense.

Ordnance = A cannon

Cannon =

1. A great gun for battery

2. A gun larger than can be managed by hand.

Gun = The general name for firearms; the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire.

Firearms = Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns.

There you have it, from the time the Constitution was written, the full circle of that which are arms.

Woody

I'll have to check this later at a library or something. Even so, the Constitution was written about 30 years later, and if the Founding Fathers intended cannon to fall under ordnance (arms being a separate term from ordnance), then this is moot anyway.

 

[rmgill]

During the Rev War there were over 1600 Privateers in use by the rebels. That'd be small sailing vessels up to just about full men of war or converted merchantmen made into men of war with cannons and carronades. Most certainly a serious piece of hardware and collection of ordnance.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

TwitchALot, do you disagree that cannons are weapons of offense which would make them arms?

"Cars" and "Trucks" are different but they are both vehicles. "Ordnance" is just a specific class of arms, same as "Trucks" are a specific class of vehicle. You can get more into a truck than a car same as you get more firepower from a cannon than a rifle. Both will "get you there", albeit one with more than the other, but you get there all the same.

When it's up to one against a hundred, or moving your household goods a hundred miles, the cannon would be the arm of choice as would be the truck.

Besides, the Second Amendment covers arms and doesn't break weapons down to the specific categories, same as it doesn't break down the armour you may have into specific categories. What you and Smeg are saying is that it would be possible for the government to limit you to hiding behind no bigger than a six inch diameter tree in a gun battle, or that bunkers would only be accessible to soldiers, or that shelters would only be accessible to government officials and you couldn't own one for yourself.

But please, do go to the library. You might want to check the many dictionaries on line, too.

Consider this as well: What good would letters of marque and reprisal be if those private vessels had no cannon?

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[ctdonath]

Fairly certain I wouldn't get Waco'd or Ruby Ridge'd anytime soon.

FWIW: Waco and Ruby Ridge happened within 6 months of each other.
It was nearly 15 years before the feds tried that again after "Katrina", and apparently some insiders reminded the participants that initiating violent confrontations with armed citizens guilty of no, or minor, crimes was a Very Bad Idea(TM) and the exercise was quickly halted.

To the thread's question:
When a Leftist brings up the "but what about nukes?" red herring, remind them that there are no nukes in private hands, but lots of guns are, and as a result the government treats the people pretty well actually - and that when they don't, such as in Waco and Ruby Ridge, the gov't may win but they don't do it again. The armed populace IS keeping the government in line, merely by being armed.

Bring the question back to reality, and rub their face in it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

ctdonath

Common sense will prevail, won't it!

Woody

 

[ctdonath]

That's what it looks like in Heller: the anti-RKBA crowd was finally pressed to make sense of their position, and they can't.