Provoking thought: Just what is this 'right to bear arms?'

[ErikO]

My friend, the former West Point history prof. (and walking lexicon of everything you want to know.... seriously, this guys a genius) took me by surprise with his answer to this question during a conversation a couple years ago (pre Heller)...

He is pretty much convinced that the only restriction intended was your financial means.

I asked if that included a 155 mm howitzer and he said sure!

BUT.... the minute you misuse that howitzer (i.e. drop a shell on the neighbors property) and/or hurt somebody, the government has the right to punish you as severely as the democratically passed law allows... including a rope around your neck.

I'm not sure if I agree with him, but found it to be an interesting point of view, from a rather well read source.

I agree with the sentiment that you should be able to get whatever arm you want. I have no issue with anyone having any tool they want until they use that tool to commit a crime or in some manner that causes unintended harm to another. We already have laws to govern those actions and do not require more that deal with specific tools.

I don't care if it is a hammer or a howitzer, a tool is a tool. Gun restrictions are unnecessary and do not stop criminals from committing crimes.

 

[Dave Workman]

Standing Wolf wrote:

Thanks for another fine article, Dave.

And you are welcome Sir.

Now, how's about sharing some of your thoughts on just what this "right to bear arms" really means?

 

[SleazyRider]

"Bearing arms must extend beyond the front door, and certainly beyond one’s property line. It logically must apply to what was traditional and in vogue at the time James Madison penned the Second Amendment; a period when it was not uncommon to find rural farmers, frontiersmen and townspeople going armed, either with a rifle or musket, a pistol or brace of pistols, perhaps a fixed blade knife of some kind, a hatchet or tomahawk; any manner of weapon."

I agree implicitly---that bearing arms must extend beyond the front door---so please don't misunderstand me. But here is just one problem with viewing the Constitution through the lens of the Founding Fathers: Do you think they could ever envision a time when pornography would be protected by the First Amendment? What about a time when a slave could vote? Or a tax on one's income? Of course not. So I tend not to rely too heavily on interpreting what the Architects of the Constitution had on their mind when I am making an argument for gun ownership. The language of the Second Amendment seems plain as the nose on my face, but so do many of the passages in the Bible that have been widely interpreted.

Perhaps the most significant difference in bearing arms today as opposed to a century-and-a-half ago, is that I suspect most gun owners today own a gun for protection against other citizens, and not from wild animals or a tyrannical government (Heck, a substantial portion of us don't even vote or write letters to the editor!). And this is not to be taken lightly: I'd sooner spend a week unarmed in Alaska's backcountry than among the citizenry of the South Bronx.

The right to protect myself and my family extends beyond the Laws of Man; it is an instinctive, common-sense right that legislators can only pretend to regulate with their laws. Bearing a firearm is essential to this right.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The unfettered right to bear arms should not extend onto private property of others against their will. In other words, property owners should reserve the right to prohibit you from bringing a gun into their home or business, just as they can prohibit you from entering if you are wearing a tank top or smoking a cigar.

 

[230RN]

To me, playing Devil's Advocate here, the main problem of a totally untrammeled Second Amendment is that the moneyed can buy better and more weapons that the un-moneyed, like you and me. This, to me, seems to open the door to a warlord-type of society --ultimately.

This, in turn, raises the question of whether masses of individuals, each financially limited to "carry-able" personal arms, can overcome an extremely wealthy "warlord" who can purchase far superior weaponry. Recent events (e.g., Libya) indicate they can, but probably not without outside help. Like we got from the French during our Revolution.

During the various "union wars," it was clear that the "companies" could afford to bring to bear machine guns and mercenaries, as well as other high-level weaponry and even law enforcement forces, against the union workers.

In short, money talks.

And Power accretes.

I have no resolution for this problem, but I thought I'd bring it up as food for thought, Dave Workman. It's bound to come up sooner or later.

Leaving my "Devil's Advocate" position now, it all seems to boil down to this:

One the one hand, a completely untrammeled Second Amendment allows the rich to buy "big guns" and accrete power, leaving the man in the street with financially-limited firepower but with at least a small chance of overcoming those "big guns" because he has some means of protecting himself.

On the other hand, "reasonable regulation" of weaponry still allows the rich to buy "big guns" surreptitiously, but leaving the man in the street with no, zero, nada chance of overcoming the high level weaponry of those who can afford it.

I vote for the former.

Terry, 230RN

 

[holdencm9]

I don't believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen the right to self protection against criminals through the bearing of arms. Although, certainly, that right exists. I believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen the right to bear arms for the purpose of fulfilling their rights to overthrow their government if the need should arise, according to the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, and although I think that protection from criminals counts as the inalienable right as well, I think the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government in check, bizarre as the concept of government overthrow seems to us, obviously in history is not uncommon.

Also, for those anti-gun folk who think right to bear arms only extends to well-regulated militia (and not individual citizens) I usually point them to Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison aka Publius. That paper also deals in large part with the states' protection from the federal gov't.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Obviously the numbers are bigger now, but same basic point.

 

[Pyro]

Every American has the right to own bear arms.

 

[Wanderling]

Do you really think rich people want nukes so they can set them off?

I certainly believe the rich people are not any different from other people. They can become criminally insane, or influenced by extreme ideology or cult. Osama bin Laden was certainly rich enough, and he could've just as well be an American citizen.

"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." Pretty simple. Shall not be infringed. Well, we are infringed.

If you have the land and money to 'play with a howitzer', go for it. Personal responsibility. What if my chosen caliber can shoot through one person and hit another? Too much gun?

What if your chosen caliber could take out a thousand innocent bystanders at once ? That's what balancing is all about.

Are you for 'balancing' the First Amendment? Should some legal speech be too much?

The First Amendment is indeed balanced, and has been for a very long time. Ever heard of laws protecting state secrets, for example ?

The idea that everyone should be trusted to behave responsibly, should be given the opportunity to procure whichever weapon they fancy and can afford (including weapons designed to kill the maximum possible number of people at once), and the government job is only to clean up the pile of bodies and punish the perpetrator after the misuse happens, is by itself irresponsible, extreme, silly and naive. While most people are responsible, the irresponsible and murderous behavior of previously law abiding people is nothing new or rare.

Moreover, it's such armchair zealots that endanger the 2A. The Constitution is very hard to change but it's not written in stone. There's 300,000,000 citizens in this country. Probably 200,000,000 of them are eligible to vote. Like it or not, not all of them share your ideas. Some are opposed to gun controls, some are afraid of guns, some don't have a firm opinion, but are not willing to sacrifice the 2A. Scared enough, they will vote the politicians in who will destroy 2A. And if the legally procured hand grenades, mortar shells and RPG rounds start flying in the US cities, it won't be long until they are scared. The reasonable gun control is necessary to protect your and mine right to bear arms.

I really wonder how many people supporting the lassez faire approach to weapon ownership have much real life experience outside the high school.

 

[SleazyRider]

One of the problems I foresee with the argument that firearms protect us from a tyrannical government is this: exactly who is the government? Most of the people who live within a few miles of me work for the government in some capacity, be it a fireman, LEO, postal worker, county employee, et cetera. Even teachers are employed on the public dime. I know very few self-employed entrepreneurs who don't depend on the government for their bread and butter. In early America, folks who worked for the government were few and far between, not to mention readily identifiable. It was largely an agrarian, self-reliant society. Today, the "government" is woven into the fabric of our friends and neighbors; and my guess it that when it come's to declaring one allegiance, drawing a salary will trump philosophical arguments any day. In other words, don't expect the tyrants to be wearing black hats and staying on their side of the fence. At whom should we shoot?

Pogo stated it more eloquently, perhaps: We have met the enemy and it is us.

 

[Fred_G]

So, how do you balance it?

"What if your chosen caliber could take out a thousand innocent bystanders at once ? That's what balancing is all about."

Ask many liberals, and they are all for gun rights. Well, of course only for hunting, and sporting uses. If you go very far down that path, what possible need could you have for an assault rifle (remember the not do distant assault rifle ban?)

The government can't seem to even balance a budget (think about the debt ceiling talk) but I am to just trust them with my 2A rights? .50? Can't be any sporting use for that, nope, you can't have one. Bolt action 30/30? Sure, just fill out these forms, send in your fee, and you will hear from us in 100 days or less. (exaggeration of course.)

 

[Trent]

Fred, agree with you.

Handing over registration to the Government would be a disaster unparalleled. Need an example... how's this one, what's the wait time on a Form 4 nowadays? 6 weeks? 2 months? 5 months?

There is absolutely nothing efficient about the government. People seem to have this glossy image of "order and control", but in reality, on the whole, Government is more sloppy, more out of control, more disorderly, and slower than ANY private industry or organization. Why? There's no competition - nothing to set the bar to, no other choice, whatsoever.

The government doesn't have to step up and hold itself to a higher level of quality or efficiency because there is no other point of comparison to hold them against, except other governments. But since we can't readily choose a different government (without massive displacement and life change) we're universally stuck with the one we're born in to.

Sure, people immigrate here because the quality of living is higher, and there are more choices.

But I would argue that is strictly and 100% due to our wealth of private business, and has nothing at all to do with the government itself.

I've never, not once, had an interaction with the government that left me feeling "proud to be an American." Whether paying taxes, working with public schools, getting my FFL, going through the court system fighting for custody of my disabled sister, paying a traffic ticket, getting my FOID card so I have "permission to own a weapon", going through the joke that is the DMV .. Every single time I've dealt with the government, it has been a generally negative experience.

Why would we trust THEM with the ability to control what firearms we may or may not own? Or in what quantity? Or in what configuration? Or when we may purchase?

By the same logic he applied to "large weapons capable of leveling a house", you could also sum up the personal collections of many members on this board and say the following:

"This {man/woman} has X number of firearms in his collection, which is enough to outfit a body of men the size of a {squad/platoon/company/etc}, and has {X} thousands of rounds of ammunition, and the ability to make more ammunition. Using our calculations this {man/woman} has the capability of assembling a force of {whatever size} and eliminating {X} inhabitants of the local community in {X} minutes."

By your logic, since someone may have the ability to annihilate the entire population base of the their town/village/city/county at their disposal, then THEY must be a problem, right?

I have absolutely no issue with someone who wants to buy a 105mm, even if their only purpose is to blow up trees out on their estate. Why?

Because if it ever becomes a problem, that problem can be swiftly dealt with by sufficient lethal force.

You can - quite literally - remove EVERY firearms law from 1934 on, and HAVE NO GAP. Every criminal act which you can conceive of, and do with the weapons, is covered by other laws.

 

[J-Bar]

"Arms" are enhancements for teeth and claws.

Teeth and claws are used to dominate or eliminate competition for food and mates, and to ensure survival of the one who can use teeth and claws most effectively.

Social animals learned to band into tribes for mutual benefit and protection (many teeth and claws are better than just one set). And so mankind learned to establish armies.

The Founders were classically educated. They understood that when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, he was announcing that he was intending to take over Rome. They understood the dangers of having standing armies controlled by powerful, rich, charismatic individuals. The one with the most teeth and claws will tell you what to do or kill you. So the Founders made an effort to prevent tyanny by those who might raise an army of their own, by giving American citizens a means to resist tyranny; letting individuals keep their own teeth and claws.

Anyone who has shot at a public range has seen people who should not own guns, much less howitzers or nukes. And if American citizens are ever moved to take up arms against their own government, then it's all over anyway. How are you going to get any good responsible candidate to run for office if they see that angry citizens are likely to shoot them?

I am grateful to our nation's founders for being sensitive to the dangers of rich, charismatic politicians acquiring their own armies and tyrannical power, but I don't think an armed populace, provided by the Second Amendment, is sufficient to ensure our personal freedoms and liberty. Personal freedom and liberty in America is only going to be ensured by citizens who value personal responsibility over government handouts. But I will use my enhanced teeth and claws to protect myself and my family on a personal level whenever necessary.

 

[QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW]

 

[Wanderling]

Again, punishing for the crime already committed does nothing to bring the innocent victims back. Using that logic we need no police patrolling the streets trying to prevent crimes. Just have them dispense punishment for the crimes already committed. I am sure you would sleep just fine at night knowing that your psycho neighbor has enough firepower to wipe out several city blocks in one swoop but hey, if anything happens the justice will served.

 

[Fred_G]

Wanderling, you seem to be just bringing a talking point not any real ideas. And please excuse me if I am not understanding your solution.

Would I sleep better at night if the government said I only 'needed' a single shot .22 rifle? And in all honesty, how many psycho neighbors have weapons like that? Would all the rich psycho's and all the criminals suddenly start obeying the laws?

Is someone more dead if I shoot them 30 times with my AR-15 EBR, or once with my Mosin Nagant? And how do we rate the gun's leathality, if both have bayonets on them?

I ask again, where do you draw the line? What can a law abiding citizen have, and what is too much, and who decides?

How would you like this one defining your 2A rights?

http://youtu.be/9rGpykAX1fo

(It is the thing that goes up that makes is so much more deadly.)

 

[Neverwinter]

So, how do you balance it?

"What if your chosen caliber could take out a thousand innocent bystanders at once ? That's what balancing is all about."

Ask many liberals, and they are all for gun rights. Well, of course only for hunting, and sporting uses. If you go very far down that path, what possible need could you have for an assault rifle (remember the not do distant assault rifle ban?)

The government can't seem to even balance a budget (think about the debt ceiling talk) but I am to just trust them with my 2A rights? .50? Can't be any sporting use for that, nope, you can't have one. Bolt action 30/30? Sure, just fill out these forms, send in your fee, and you will hear from us in 100 days or less. (exaggeration of course.)

It's disappointing that people continue to prop up the existence of disarmament proponents to justify the other extreme of the spectrum. Neither are rational positions.

BTW, the budget issues are not comparable to running a registry, unless it is politically profitable to sabotage the registry by providing obstructionists into the system in an effort to reinforce the narrative of ineffective government.

 

[Fred_G]

I am sorry Neverwinter, what is this 'registry' you speak of? I am asking what level the government can say, NO, you as a citizen can't have this gun. Registration?

"unless it is politically profitable to sabotage the registry" You lost me there, can you expand on that?

I bring up the budget just as an example of how the government can't do a process we all can do with our checkbooks. More government is good how? Eh, so they can't balance a checkbook, but they can balance my future and current gun collection...

 

[Wanderling]

Wanderling, you seem to be just bringing a talking point not any real ideas. And please excuse me if I am not understanding your solution.

Would I sleep better at night if the government said I only 'needed' a single shot .22 rifle? And in all honesty, how many psycho neighbors have weapons like that? Would all the rich psycho's and all the criminals suddenly start obeying the laws?

Is someone more dead if I shoot them 30 times with my AR-15 EBR, or once with my Mosin Nagant? And how do we rate the gun's leathality, if both have bayonets on them?

I ask again, where do you draw the line? What can a law abiding citizen have, and what is too much, and who decides?

How would you like this one defining your 2A rights?

http://youtu.be/9rGpykAX1fo

(It is the thing that goes up that makes is so much more deadly.)

As Neverwinter said, one extreme is not better than another. A total ban is bad, a free-for-all is equally bad. Ultimately both approaches with very high probability could get me killed.

I prefer using my voting rights and my, however small, ability to influence my government by voting in the politicians that support my views, and making sure I am very vocal about my views and my approval or disapproval of their actions. Seems to have been working so far.

While this may not be an ideal tool, this is the best one we have. Don't forget, we live in a Democratic Republic. While some of us would like to ignore the beliefs of people we disagree with, this isn't how the system works (thank God). Your vote is as good as the other person's. The weapons ban, if enacted, will not happen because of some politician. It will happen because of tens of millions of other voters that either support that ban, or don't care enough to vote and let their voice heard. It hasn't happened so far because of tens of millions of people who are supporting 2A. Many, if not most, of them don't want to have the right to bear arms taken away, but they also don't want their crazed neighbor to get hold of a multiple rocket launch system. Scare or alienate this moderate group, and the weapons ban will become a reality very quickly.

The Constitution is not the Ten Commandments. It's not written in stone. The Founders created it with a process to change it. This change is very hard to make, and for a good reason. The threshold is high. As long as you work to increase the number of moderate supporters, not turn them away, this threshold will never be met.

 

[Trent]

Wanderling;

Knowing that they're never going to open the registry back up, I still feel shortchanged in a very big way. I didn't reach age of majority until '95, 11 years after domestic "new" sales closed. By the time I was a "full" legal firearm owner at age 21, we already had an assault weapons ban in place, and it was years before I'd had an income which could support buying anything remotely fun - and at vastly inflated costs.

I also live in a state with no carry rights that is especially NFA unfriendly (only one possibility there - manufacturer with SOT is exempt from State Law, per statute, which carries with it an expensive annual maintenance cost).

My point is, the current system hasn't been especially "fair" or "just" to my generation.

We've gained some ground, with the sunset of the AW ban, but there's still a long way to go just to restore basic, essential rights for everyone.

In IL, we still have a Cook County / Chicago ban. That one county holds such a voting sway in the house and senate, it's proven impossible to make any substantial forward progress - despite annual IGOLD rallies in Springfield, and the mayor of Peoria offering to pilot test concealed carry (Peoria being the third largest metropolitan in the state). The majority of the state is pro-gun, and supports becoming CCW and NFA friendly. However, we have one county that "rules it all".

I posted a thread under the Legal forum about a downstate politician proposing a bill to make Chicago a "District Of". It was closed as off topic, which is understandable, but it certainly was NOT off topic if one is familiar with the situation we face here.

How does this relates to this thread / topic?

Our system doesn't always work. In fact, it has been my observation that more often than not, our system fails us. So many programs - NFA included - are an obstruction to rights. Our government takes our voter's trust and misallocates it. Doesn't matter what the topic of the moment is, Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, immigration, 2nd amendment rights, IRS... the fact is, "systems" tend to become bloated and broken when there's no real checks and balances.

The government fails at protecting our rights for the same reason a trust fund baby will leave a Ferrari on the side of the road when it runs out of gas and goes out to buy a new one. (True case, that one). There is no oversight, and no pressing NEED to manage things efficiently, when they are essentially writing a blank check with our taxes - spending more than they take, year after year, after year.

Trusting our Government to regulate what's in our best interest my have been acceptable 300 years ago. I believe the powers that be have eroded the public trust to the point it's non-existent.

You want to regulate weapons of state defense, ok - but we should start over again at a pre-34 blank page and do it - because last time I checked, sawed off shotguns and silencers weren't "weapons of mass destruction".

 

[Wanderling]

Wanderling;

Knowing that they're never going to open the registry back up, I still feel shortchanged in a very big way. I didn't reach age of majority until '95, 11 years after domestic "new" sales closed. By the time I was a "full" legal firearm owner at age 21, we already had an assault weapons ban in place, and it was years before I'd had an income which could support buying anything remotely fun - and at vastly inflated costs.

I also live in a state with no carry rights that is especially NFA unfriendly (only one possibility there - manufacturer with SOT is exempt from State Law, per statute, which carries with it an expensive annual maintenance cost).

My point is, the current system hasn't been especially "fair" or "just" to my generation.

We've gained some ground, with the sunset of the AW ban, but there's still a long way to go just to restore basic, essential rights for everyone.

In IL, we still have a Cook County / Chicago ban. That one county holds such a voting sway in the house and senate, it's proven impossible to make any substantial forward progress - despite annual IGOLD rallies in Springfield, and the mayor of Peoria offering to pilot test concealed carry (Peoria being the third largest metropolitan in the state). The majority of the state is pro-gun, and supports becoming CCW and NFA friendly. However, we have one county that "rules it all".

I posted a thread under the Legal forum about a downstate politician proposing a bill to make Chicago a "District Of". It was closed as off topic, which is understandable, but it certainly was NOT off topic if one is familiar with the situation we face here.

How does this relates to this thread / topic?

Our system doesn't always work. In fact, it has been my observation that more often than not, our system fails us. So many programs - NFA included - are an obstruction to rights. Our government takes our voter's trust and misallocates it. Doesn't matter what the topic of the moment is, Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, immigration, 2nd amendment rights, IRS... the fact is, "systems" tend to become bloated and broken when there's no real checks and balances.

The government fails at protecting our rights for the same reason a trust fund baby will leave a Ferrari on the side of the road when it runs out of gas and goes out to buy a new one. (True case, that one). There is no oversight, and no pressing NEED to manage things efficiently, when they are essentially writing a blank check with our taxes - spending more than they take, year after year, after year.

Trusting our Government to regulate what's in our best interest my have been acceptable 300 years ago. I believe the powers that be have eroded the public trust to the point it's non-existent.

You want to regulate weapons of state defense, ok - but we should start over again at a pre-34 blank page and do it - because last time I checked, sawed off shotguns and silencers weren't "weapons of mass destruction".

And to start over again, you must use the system. It may suck, but it's the only one we have. What's the alternative - a coup ?

I grew up behind the curtain, lived through the major changes and the political awakening of the late 80s, came here when I was still young enough to embrace and understand the American way of living, yet if there's one thing that I simply refuse to understand, it's why the majority of Americans can't be bothered to exercise their voting rights, aren't interested in history (which always tends to repeat itself), and would rather support a party platform than form an independent opinion on each subject and let it be known to their elected representative. Whenever people bitch to me about government this and government that, my first question is, when did you last email your congressman about it ? (Usually never.)

 

[rusty bubbles]

Unarmed people are like sheep--they are helpless and obedient --just the way dictators like em.
If the Syrian protestors were armed,the ruling elite wouldn't be able to slaughter them in their thousands for daring to protest

That's what the 2nd is about

 

[Owen Sparks]

Wanderling said:

“Again, punishing for the crime already committed does nothing to bring the innocent victims back. Using that logic we need no police patrolling the streets trying to prevent crimes. Just have them dispense punishment for the crimes already committed.”

Ever heard the term “Innocent until proven guilty”?

Outside of traffic infractions the police almost NEVER prevent crime by physically intervening. They just show up afterward to take the report, gather evidence and interview witnesses and arrest the guilty and the courts take it from there.

The problem with gun control laws is that they presuppose guilt BEFORE THE FACT based on the POTENTIAL for you to to commit a crime because you have a tool that you MIGHT misuse.

 

[SSN Vet]

This, to me, seems to open the door to a warlord-type of society --ultimately.

My knowledge is limited and I'm certainly not read up on these things as well as others....

but this kind of war lord society is exactly what I think you had in Chicago in the 20's, where organized crime (and very rich criminals) out gunned law enforcement. Isn't this the backdrop that provoked the NFA in the 30's?

What's this country going to look like when our financial woes really do come home to roost? Will the drug cartels make inroads and be able to take over regions of the country because they have LE out gunned? And if not, how much of a tax burden are we the citizenry willing to shoulder to keep LE up to speed with modern weaponry?

OBTW, I'm not advocating the howitzer thing... but I do think that it's interesting to find a man who is very well versed in history come to that conclusion.

Certainly (imo) American society benefits from WMDs (nerve gas, bombs, nukes, etc...) being tightly regulated an restricted.

I'm interested in learning of any anecdotal evidence that early private citizens possessed artillery pieces.

 

[Trent]

How about direct inheritance lineage? Many artillery pieces I have seen in use or at shows, can be traced back through direct family lines.

Keep in mind, it has *never* been illegal to build, buy, assemble, or shot muzzle loading black powder cannons, even really BIG ones. The only thing there's a limitation on is loading them with explosive ordnance. That's frowned upon. But even so, there's still old guys who suspend a glass jar by a string in the middle of a concrete shot as it hardens, drill it with a masonry bit, fill it with FFFG, put a fuse in, load it fuse inward, and launch the suckers.

Saw a breech-loading howitzer fired a Knob Creek one year, poor guy had to pay a tax stamp for every round of ammunition he loaded. They were shooting solid cast lead projectiles at cars, effects were quite compelling as to the forces involved.

 

[Owen Sparks]

This always comes up.

Your right to anything can be limited by its the danger it poses to your neighbors.
For example, It might be perfectly legal for you to keep a 55 gallon drum of gasoline on a 500 acre farm but not in a high-rise city apartment. You might also be able to keep exotic animals on a large ranch out West but you could not safely keep a live Bengal Tiger in your back yard. Explosives are no different and heavy weapons like howitzer shells pose a potential risk to anyone within a half mile radius if there is an accident.
Small arms ammunition does not.

Even if there were NO weapon laws and you could somehow afford a howitzer, you probably could not afford a secure facility with enough acreage to safely store the ordinance. Anything beyond small arms are totally impractical for almost all individuals and that is what we are talking about here, man portable small arms.