beerslurpy
member
That was basically my argument above, only mine was more convoluted.
Rhetoric question...why should machine guns be okay, but not nukes?
- Thread starter LDL707
- Start date
- Status
That was basically my argument above, only mine was more convoluted.
None that I'm aware of.
This is one of those "fun" questions that everyone really knows the answer to but finds surprisingly difficult to write down in a thousand words or less.
When you're tired of being entertained with this topic, start a thread about the definition of "quality".
DerringerUser
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 238
Because you dont know who's gonna die in a nuke attack, but you do if you're shooting a gun.
ksnecktieman
Member
Can we work on the definition of the first amendment too?
If a printing press is four tons, and requires a crew of three to feed it paper and ink , and keep it running? Is it still protected speech?
If any citizen, at home can type anything he wants to, and it travel around the country, or around the world instantly we need the means to control that equipment. It is a devicce of mass disinformation.
Do these amendments mean what they say? I think so.
If a printing press is four tons, and requires a crew of three to feed it paper and ink , and keep it running? Is it still protected speech?
If any citizen, at home can type anything he wants to, and it travel around the country, or around the world instantly we need the means to control that equipment. It is a devicce of mass disinformation.
Do these amendments mean what they say? I think so.
As I understand it, 'Arms' back then was the personal weapons of a soldier, not something requiring a crew to operate/move. Swords, muskets, rifles, pikes, knives, etc...
Today there's a distinction between 'munitions' and 'arms'. A bomb is a munition, it's typically not considered part of an individual soldier's kit. It's also incapable of being used discriminately against distinct targets, unlike a rifle. And that especially includes nuclear bombs, even ones small enough to be carted around by an individual.
Today there's a distinction between 'munitions' and 'arms'. A bomb is a munition, it's typically not considered part of an individual soldier's kit. It's also incapable of being used discriminately against distinct targets, unlike a rifle. And that especially includes nuclear bombs, even ones small enough to be carted around by an individual.
22-rimfire
Member
With the present laws, you can own a full auto and you can own a tank. But you can't own or shoot exploding ordanance.
ksnecktieman
Member
firethorn?
By that logic, do you consider the founders first amendment concerns to protect only the quill pen, and the unamplified spoken word?
By that logic, do you consider the founders first amendment concerns to protect only the quill pen, and the unamplified spoken word?
The problem with this kind of "original intent" reading is that the framers clearly only knew about muzzle loaders of various types, and edged weapons. A clever liberal might argue that only muzzle loading arms are covered, to include ML artillery, since clearly that was the arms of which the writes of the 2A were referring to.
It is somewhat of a non-starter as arguments go if one is intellectually honest, but abortion was de-criminalized on a much more tenuous basis. One never knows what kind of argument will be accepted by judges these days.
Addressing a few issues here:
I think that just defines that it's two distinct rights. I have the right to keep arms, and I have the right to bear them. I don't believe that it's necessary to be able to bear an arm in order to keep it.
Why not suitcase nukes? They certainly have a legitimate military use, don't they?
This is irrelevant. First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear "discriminating" arms. Second, of course, small arms do not discriminate. The user discriminates--or doesn't.
One could argue that FA weapons have limited use for self defense, as well. You even argue that machine guns are less efficient than semi-autos.
It doesn't really matter, though, because the Second Amendment isn't dependant upon defense, or any other factor. Whether a weapon can be used for self-defense, or mischief, or causing diplomatic problems doesn't invalidate the fact that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This also is a good point, but it also seems irrelevant. I like Col. Cooper as much as anybody, but I find it hard to believe that my rights somehow depend on his rules.
I think that just defines that it's two distinct rights. I have the right to keep arms, and I have the right to bear them. I don't believe that it's necessary to be able to bear an arm in order to keep it.
Why not suitcase nukes? They certainly have a legitimate military use, don't they?
This is irrelevant. First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear "discriminating" arms. Second, of course, small arms do not discriminate. The user discriminates--or doesn't.
One could argue that FA weapons have limited use for self defense, as well. You even argue that machine guns are less efficient than semi-autos.
It doesn't really matter, though, because the Second Amendment isn't dependant upon defense, or any other factor. Whether a weapon can be used for self-defense, or mischief, or causing diplomatic problems doesn't invalidate the fact that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This also is a good point, but it also seems irrelevant. I like Col. Cooper as much as anybody, but I find it hard to believe that my rights somehow depend on his rules.
crazed_ss
Member
Ok.. I hate to sound like an anti here, but I seriously doubt the founding fathers intended for citizens to own weapons which could distablize the entire world. Let's use a little common sense.
This is another reason why it's hard to get people over to the RKBA cause. I mentioned the speech I gave in my Communications class. It was supposed to be a debate, but ended up becoming a learning and information session. Most of the kids in the class were unfamilar with gun laws and how guns work.. after I explained things to them, not one even try to challenge me on Assault Weapons, Concealed Carry, or Anything..
Now if I had went in there trying to convince them that we should be allowed to have aircraft carriers and nukes, Im pretty sure no one would have taken me seriously as I'd come off as an extremist.
This is another reason why it's hard to get people over to the RKBA cause. I mentioned the speech I gave in my Communications class. It was supposed to be a debate, but ended up becoming a learning and information session. Most of the kids in the class were unfamilar with gun laws and how guns work.. after I explained things to them, not one even try to challenge me on Assault Weapons, Concealed Carry, or Anything..
Now if I had went in there trying to convince them that we should be allowed to have aircraft carriers and nukes, Im pretty sure no one would have taken me seriously as I'd come off as an extremist.
Actually, I'm very pro-gun.
I was debating the issue with a friend the other day, and mentioned that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. He asked why we shouldn't be able to own nukes...
and I had no reasonable answer for him.
I'm mildly afraid that this inconsistency somehow invalidates my argument, so I'm trying to find a logical solution.
The problem that crazed_ss brings up is exactly my problem. It's difficult enough arguing that we should be allowed to own FA weapons without restriction. It becomes a lot harder if you have to argue that we should be allowed to keep nukes in order to stay intellectually honest.
I'm trying to find a way to argue that we should be allowed machine guns and not be allowed nukes, without cheating from a logical point of view.
Ok, I'll risk a serious response.
The people who wrote the constitution and the amendments to it had no concept of a weapon that could obliterate an area larger than the largest city that any of them had ever seen, kill and maim over a larger area, cause disease over yet a larger area, and make an even larger area unsafe for human habitation for decades, perhaps even centuries afterwards. Nor did they have any reason to believe, nor even an inkling that anything like that could ever exist.
Pretty much any other weapon (including machine guns, tanks, handguns, cannons, etc. but excluding other WMDs) that we have today is a logical extension/evolution/technological progression of things/concepts they knew about and implicitly included when they said that a person had the right to keep and bear arms.
That's a complicated answer.
A simpler answer would be to ask him if he knows of anyone who has difficulty defining the difference between a WMD and a non-WMD. Then ask him if there are ANY governments today that treat WMDs identically to non-WMDs. Then ask him why he thinks that the founding fathers would be different.
The people who wrote the constitution and the amendments to it had no concept of a weapon that could obliterate an area larger than the largest city that any of them had ever seen, kill and maim over a larger area, cause disease over yet a larger area, and make an even larger area unsafe for human habitation for decades, perhaps even centuries afterwards. Nor did they have any reason to believe, nor even an inkling that anything like that could ever exist.
Pretty much any other weapon (including machine guns, tanks, handguns, cannons, etc. but excluding other WMDs) that we have today is a logical extension/evolution/technological progression of things/concepts they knew about and implicitly included when they said that a person had the right to keep and bear arms.
That's a complicated answer.
A simpler answer would be to ask him if he knows of anyone who has difficulty defining the difference between a WMD and a non-WMD. Then ask him if there are ANY governments today that treat WMDs identically to non-WMDs. Then ask him why he thinks that the founding fathers would be different.
ksnecktieman
Member
ldl?
Do you think the framers would have exempted nukes,, if they could comprehend the future possibilities?
Do you think they would have exempted the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today, from instant worldwide distribution, if they could have comprehended the possibility.
Do you think they would have excluded the internet, if they could comprehend us sitting here, stupid, and/or drinking, and sending our thoughts to thousands, or millions of people?
I do not think they would envision any restrictions on either one as exceptable.
Just My Humble Opinion, of course.
Do you think the framers would have exempted nukes,, if they could comprehend the future possibilities?
Do you think they would have exempted the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today, from instant worldwide distribution, if they could have comprehended the possibility.
Do you think they would have excluded the internet, if they could comprehend us sitting here, stupid, and/or drinking, and sending our thoughts to thousands, or millions of people?
I do not think they would envision any restrictions on either one as exceptable.
Just My Humble Opinion, of course.
i know i'll get flamed for this, but it's not unreasonable to suggest the 2A is a little out-dated. I know it's not politically feasible, or even worth discussing, but IMHO, the right thing to do would be to use the tools the constitution gives us; namely, an amendment that clarifies UNAMBIGUOUSLY the right to self-defense, and excludes WMDs.
until then, i believe the unbiased, everyday-joe reading of the constitution would say the 2A covers any arms reasonable for a militia to own (and this was the opinion in US vs MILLER as I understand it, despite their classifying SBS as a non-militia-type weapon) and that would to my way of thinking NOT include nuclear weapons, but it COULD include some pretty friggin nasty chemical and biological weapons.
until then, i believe the unbiased, everyday-joe reading of the constitution would say the 2A covers any arms reasonable for a militia to own (and this was the opinion in US vs MILLER as I understand it, despite their classifying SBS as a non-militia-type weapon) and that would to my way of thinking NOT include nuclear weapons, but it COULD include some pretty friggin nasty chemical and biological weapons.
Outlaws
Member
IMO, the major reason FA was banned was because of mobsters and bank robbers. But back then forensic evidence was a finger print or the visual identification of a witness.
IMO also, the reason guns are not used so often anymore is because anyone who has seen the television in the last 10 years knows that they can trace bullets to the gun, lift fabric off somewhere you wouldn't think it would get to, and there is a ton of video cameras everywhere that you are bound to cross in your entrance or exit of the near by vicinity. Plus there is the fact that most people have a cell phone so your get away headstart is hampered extremely badly.
For that reason, I do no think FA would pose the same risk it did in the 1920's and 30's.
Also, in order to obtain a FA, I would not object to there being a background check that checks your previous criminal background, you financial situation in terms of outstanding debts greater than X% of your income so you don't rob a bank, and also finger printing so that you are not already a fugative who just hasn't been caught yet. Then I believe that a special license should be given to you stating you are okay to own the FA. No secret government record that you are one the SS should come get before/during a time of "fear". Also, you cannot transfer the firearm to anyone with going to a dealer to have the said process undertaken for the prospective buyer.
That I believe to be both representative of our rights to bear arms, and also logical in protecting the LIFE, and LIBERTY of those not possessing.
IMO also, the reason guns are not used so often anymore is because anyone who has seen the television in the last 10 years knows that they can trace bullets to the gun, lift fabric off somewhere you wouldn't think it would get to, and there is a ton of video cameras everywhere that you are bound to cross in your entrance or exit of the near by vicinity. Plus there is the fact that most people have a cell phone so your get away headstart is hampered extremely badly.
For that reason, I do no think FA would pose the same risk it did in the 1920's and 30's.
Also, in order to obtain a FA, I would not object to there being a background check that checks your previous criminal background, you financial situation in terms of outstanding debts greater than X% of your income so you don't rob a bank, and also finger printing so that you are not already a fugative who just hasn't been caught yet. Then I believe that a special license should be given to you stating you are okay to own the FA. No secret government record that you are one the SS should come get before/during a time of "fear". Also, you cannot transfer the firearm to anyone with going to a dealer to have the said process undertaken for the prospective buyer.
That I believe to be both representative of our rights to bear arms, and also logical in protecting the LIFE, and LIBERTY of those not possessing.
The Framers clearly couldn't have envisioned nukes. They also probably couldn't have envisioned the internet, or, it could be argued, fully automatic weapons. There are literally thousands of things that we take for granted that the Framers probably didn't envision. That doesn't in any way change the fact that they said that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press" or the fact that they said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The beauty of the Constitution is that it doesn't lay out what we are allowed to do. It lays out what the government is allowed to do. It clearly prohibits the government from abridging our rights.
My reading of the Constitution tends to allign fairly closely with ksnecktieman's.
That being said, I would be a lot happier if I could come up with a logically consistent argument that would prohibit us from owning nukes.
Fully automatic weapons are difficult enough to argue for without sounding like a right-wing nutjob. It's going to be a lot worse if I also have to argue that nukes should be allowed.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Clearing Things Up
Point One: The "government" has no right to tell us anything. "Government" only has powers. It only has that power to to tell us what we specifically give it the power to tell us. (Drive on the right side of the road, don't commit murder, etc.)
As for arming everyone with nukes, Article I, Section 8, Clause (16), actually grants power to Congress to do just that. If you can afford it, you needn't wait upon Congress. Any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.
There is no line between full automatic firearms and nukes in the Constitution. There is no line between keeping a rock in your pocket and keeping an asteroid in orbit to crash upon your enemy, either.
Lastly, no one needs to be allowed to keep and bear any weapon. It is a right. Laws only forbid things, not grant permission or allow certain things.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government - for in the beginning, there was no government, and as governments come and go, people and their rights live on. B.E.Wood
Point One: The "government" has no right to tell us anything. "Government" only has powers. It only has that power to to tell us what we specifically give it the power to tell us. (Drive on the right side of the road, don't commit murder, etc.)
As for arming everyone with nukes, Article I, Section 8, Clause (16), actually grants power to Congress to do just that. If you can afford it, you needn't wait upon Congress. Any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.
There is no line between full automatic firearms and nukes in the Constitution. There is no line between keeping a rock in your pocket and keeping an asteroid in orbit to crash upon your enemy, either.
Lastly, no one needs to be allowed to keep and bear any weapon. It is a right. Laws only forbid things, not grant permission or allow certain things.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government - for in the beginning, there was no government, and as governments come and go, people and their rights live on. B.E.Wood
ksnecktieman
Member
Taliv???? I not only accept your opinion,,, but I approve of it... IF we can get an amendment to eliminate nukes, I would approve..... NOW if you or I draw the line,,,, where do we want it??????? Can you have a hand grenade? Can you buy dynamite to remove tree stumps? Can you buy a shoulder fired antiaircraft rocket launcher?,,,,,,
After you consider those easy questions, I have a tough one for you....... CAN I HAVE THEM TOO?
SO? now you want a background check, and a criminal history check, and a phsych evaluation???? freedomn is not taking, it is giving. to ALL with no restrictions.
After you consider those easy questions, I have a tough one for you....... CAN I HAVE THEM TOO?
SO? now you want a background check, and a criminal history check, and a phsych evaluation???? freedomn is not taking, it is giving. to ALL with no restrictions.
Technically, there's no line in the Constitution between saying "vote for Bush" and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, either. I think most people would argue, though, that the latter is legitimately restricted.
It seems to me that--ideally--there should probably be a similar line somewhere short of nuclear weapons. I just don't know where it should go, or why it should be there, Constitutionally speaking.
ksnecktieman
Member
Thank you LDL... It is tough sitting on this limb, with all the chain saws running around here. Even here, in a gun forum it seems to me that everyone believes that gun control is good, as long as it applies to someone else, or to guns they do not want.
gunsmith
member
what would Vin Suprynowicz say?
The Unlimited Power of the Sword'
by Vin Suprynowicz
A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"?
Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes."
The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "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."
Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."
Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them.
It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process.
Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate.
Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army.
Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses – that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined?
Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in:
"Vin, You did not mention: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm."
Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds:
"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.
"The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause – particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service – is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language."
The Unlimited Power of the Sword'
by Vin Suprynowicz
A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"?
Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes."
The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "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."
Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."
Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them.
It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process.
Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate.
Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army.
Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses – that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined?
Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in:
"Vin, You did not mention: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm."
Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds:
"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.
"The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause – particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service – is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language."
gunsmith
member
what would Vin Suprynowicz say?
More On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'
by Vin Suprynowicz
[email protected]
In our ongoing dialogue on "Nuclear weapons and the Second Amendment," an attorney who has subscribed to this list responded to Vin Suprynowicz today:
Hi Vin,
Just read your piece "On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'" and had a question for you:
If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a nuclear device, and turns out to be an agent of an enemy power, aren't we just providing free delivery?
Seems to me all the Chinese or North Koreans or whatever would have to do is line up a 100 folks, plus or minus, have them assemble bombs at various locations around the country, set the timers to all go off at once and leave the continent. No one could do anything about it until the molten slag had cooled - and by then bringing the perps to justice might be a moot point (with a few hundred million crispy-fried citizens rotting in the burned-out cities and waiting to be buried.)
The cops couldn't touch any of the treacherous 100 before the bombs blew because of the "Constitutional Right" to build nukes.
I'm with you in saying that citizens should not be restricted in ownership of militia arms (rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, possibly even bazookas, grenades and mortars) but I generally think of militia arms as weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person - localized tactical weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons.
To gain the "respect" of the Reno crowd, a Quad 50 or a mini gun would probably have sufficed. And a mortar would have ruined their day.
Thoughts?
K.A., J.D.
# # #
Vin responded:
Hi, K.A. --
My "thought" is that neither you nor I nor David Koresh are being allowed to possess quad 50s (in any pragmatic way -- yes, yes, we can get finrgerprinted and wait a year for approval and pay $50,000 for one of the few that ever managed to get "registered" before the import ban took effect, if my Class 3 Dealer can FIND one ...) precisely because so many folks who CLAIMED to be champions of the Second Amendment have spent the past 70 years taking one big step after another BACKWARDS, conceding, "Well, OK, it wouldn't be PRACTICAL for me to argue I should be "allowed" to exercise some "right" to own an armored car or a machine gun ..."
All based on theoretical hobgoblins, from whom we are assured only a massive police state can ever keep us safe.
Where in the Second Amendment do you find this "which can be carried and used by a single man" crap? Are you really contending Washington had no right to employ FIELDPIECES at Princeton or Yorktown? His army was a militia army, unauthorized by the crown. Did Washington's army have a right (a right which can only be the birthright of every American -- he certainly didn't gain it in any charter from King George) to use the biggest cannon it could lay hands on, or not? If you had it in your power to go back in time and deprive him of fieldpieces, would you do so? Do you BELIEVE in these "restrictive principles" which you're tossing about like pieces on a child's board game, or not?
You start out, "If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a nuclear device ..."
Thanks for conceding he has that right.
You then say "I generally think of militia arms as weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person -- localized tactical weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons."
Fine. You have every right to think that, and no one can require you to take up, learn to use, or possess any other kind of weapon if you don't want to. Others may "think" their ideal and only militia weapon should be a black powder muzzle-loader. Fine with me.
I, on the other hand, think a perfect militia weapon -- one which I'd like to save up and buy at surplus and store in the side yard -- would be a six-wheeled self-propelled 155mm cannon, with a few thousand live rounds for practice, out in the desert.
What's your point -- that someone shouldn't "allow" me to buy, own, or drive around in my self-propelled gun, because I hypothetically "might be" a Red Chinese agent? That "thinking" nuclear devices are inappropriate tactical weapons will keep bad guys from ever using one against you and yours?
That you and I might join in to a "voluntary pact" that neither of us will ever buy or build a neutron bomb? To what purpose? Someone else will -- many others already have. This is like arguing that it would really be better if rattlesnakes didn't have fangs. You haven't told me what you propose to do about it, besides which you're trying to convince the wrong guy. If you think you can talk the snake out of his fangs, or the Pentagon out of their warheads, go and try. Let me now how you do.
Or are you saying you would vote for a politician who would throw me in prison for attempting to buy the same weapons owned and operated on a daily basis by that politician's uniformed agents -- that you would cooperate in jailing me for violating the government's MONOPOLY ON ARMED FORCE, just as prevailed in the Ukraine in 1933, in Germany in 1940, in Red China under Mao, in Cambodia under Pol Pot? If so, why don't you just COME OUT AND SAY SO?
I know for a FACT the Special Operations Command down in Florida has thousands of trained "shooters" and scores of "back-pack nukes" available, which they could infiltrate into China (or Idaho) and detonate next month, if they wanted to. Welcome to the nuclear age. Just how severe a police state would you be willing to submit to, if they could "guarantee" you none of your neighbors will ever own a "prohibited weapon" ... while the government retains all it wants?
Only thing is, don't delude yourself that YOU'LL get to make the final call on which weapons are "prohibited" to us peasants.
Uncle Sam has ALREADY effectively banned those "Quad 50s and mini guns and mortars" which you discuss as though I could go down and buy one at Wal-Mart this afternoon. They'll want all the handguns and "sniper rifles" next. Look at once-free England and Australia.
There are only two sides here. Are you going to join with me -- and the Founding Fathers -- in declaring it's the birthright of every American to possess "every terrible weapon of the soldier"? Or are you going to join the parade of yellow-bellied compromisers, selling away my birthright as well as your own, whining, "Well OK, we certainly don't want to be called UNREASONABLE, so I'm willing to sell my neighbor's right to bear certain really DANGEROUS WEAPONS, along with my own, for the chimercial bowl of porridge you call 'security.' Where do I sign on to support your latest 'reasonable gun control' bill? ..."
CAN YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE UP THEIRS? DO YOU BELIEVE NO GOVERNMENT WILL EVER AGAIN MURDER ITS OWN CITIZENS? It was Thomas Paine who wrote (I may be paraphrasing) "It would be a more peaceful world if all men would lay down their arms. But because there are evil men who WILL not give up their arms, therefore men of good will DARE not give up their arms, or the evil would run among the good as wolves among sheep."
If we stopped meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, why would they want to go to the trouble of destroying us? Do you spend all your days aching for a chance to nuke Iraq or Bosnia? With folks successfully smuggling tons of cocaine and marijuana into this country every WEEK, do you really think they couldn't smuggle in a nuke -- or a couple drums of Sarin gas -- right now, if they had adequate motivation?
It's the ambitious, imperialist, meddling socialist "world police" leaders in place in Washington today -- who insist on a MONOPOLY in such armed force -- who are the folks most likely to DRAG us into such a conflict. The very people to whom you would grant an unchallenged MONOPOLY on such force are the ones who are most likely to do mischief with it. The Founders knew the best way to curtail such ambitions was to make sure such men faced, here at home, a citizen militia well enough armed to overthrow them the moment they usurped a SINGLE power not properly delegated to them.
Has Washington not usurped such undelegated powers, droves of them, for at least the past 90 years, through sheerest chicanery and threats of brute force? Do they no longer live in fear of us armed citizens? Why not? Because 70 years of compromise have reduced us to laughable windbags with deer rifles, of course.
Just how many of your rights -- and mine -- are you willing to trade away in exchange for someone lulling you to sleep with lullabye promises that they can thereby PROTECT YOU FROM EVERY DANGER?
# # #
Another reader today sent me Andrew Fletcher's 1698 "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias," familiar to all the Founders, wherein he coined the very term "well-regulated militia" which is so much under discussion today (albeit by people would probably wouldn't bother to read the phrase at its source if you set it in front of them.)
Find Fletcher's essay at
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/history/foreign/fletdisc.html
I'll close with just a portion:
"A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued eight hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a good militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia. ...
"And I cannot see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught the use of them. ...
"Is it not a shame that any man who possesses an estate, and is at the same time healthful and young, should not fit himself by all means for the defence of that, and his country, rather than to pay taxes to maintain a mercenary, who though he may defend Mm during a war, will be sure to insult and enslave him in time of peace. Men must not think that any country can be in a constant posture of defence, without some trouble and charge; but certainly it is better to undergo this, and to preserve our liberty with honour, than to be subjected to heavy taxes, and yet have it insolently ravished from us, to our present oppression, and the lasting misery of our posterity. ..."
V.S.
More On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'
by Vin Suprynowicz
[email protected]
In our ongoing dialogue on "Nuclear weapons and the Second Amendment," an attorney who has subscribed to this list responded to Vin Suprynowicz today:
Hi Vin,
Just read your piece "On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'" and had a question for you:
If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a nuclear device, and turns out to be an agent of an enemy power, aren't we just providing free delivery?
Seems to me all the Chinese or North Koreans or whatever would have to do is line up a 100 folks, plus or minus, have them assemble bombs at various locations around the country, set the timers to all go off at once and leave the continent. No one could do anything about it until the molten slag had cooled - and by then bringing the perps to justice might be a moot point (with a few hundred million crispy-fried citizens rotting in the burned-out cities and waiting to be buried.)
The cops couldn't touch any of the treacherous 100 before the bombs blew because of the "Constitutional Right" to build nukes.
I'm with you in saying that citizens should not be restricted in ownership of militia arms (rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, possibly even bazookas, grenades and mortars) but I generally think of militia arms as weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person - localized tactical weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons.
To gain the "respect" of the Reno crowd, a Quad 50 or a mini gun would probably have sufficed. And a mortar would have ruined their day.
Thoughts?
K.A., J.D.
# # #
Vin responded:
Hi, K.A. --
My "thought" is that neither you nor I nor David Koresh are being allowed to possess quad 50s (in any pragmatic way -- yes, yes, we can get finrgerprinted and wait a year for approval and pay $50,000 for one of the few that ever managed to get "registered" before the import ban took effect, if my Class 3 Dealer can FIND one ...) precisely because so many folks who CLAIMED to be champions of the Second Amendment have spent the past 70 years taking one big step after another BACKWARDS, conceding, "Well, OK, it wouldn't be PRACTICAL for me to argue I should be "allowed" to exercise some "right" to own an armored car or a machine gun ..."
All based on theoretical hobgoblins, from whom we are assured only a massive police state can ever keep us safe.
Where in the Second Amendment do you find this "which can be carried and used by a single man" crap? Are you really contending Washington had no right to employ FIELDPIECES at Princeton or Yorktown? His army was a militia army, unauthorized by the crown. Did Washington's army have a right (a right which can only be the birthright of every American -- he certainly didn't gain it in any charter from King George) to use the biggest cannon it could lay hands on, or not? If you had it in your power to go back in time and deprive him of fieldpieces, would you do so? Do you BELIEVE in these "restrictive principles" which you're tossing about like pieces on a child's board game, or not?
You start out, "If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a nuclear device ..."
Thanks for conceding he has that right.
You then say "I generally think of militia arms as weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person -- localized tactical weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons."
Fine. You have every right to think that, and no one can require you to take up, learn to use, or possess any other kind of weapon if you don't want to. Others may "think" their ideal and only militia weapon should be a black powder muzzle-loader. Fine with me.
I, on the other hand, think a perfect militia weapon -- one which I'd like to save up and buy at surplus and store in the side yard -- would be a six-wheeled self-propelled 155mm cannon, with a few thousand live rounds for practice, out in the desert.
What's your point -- that someone shouldn't "allow" me to buy, own, or drive around in my self-propelled gun, because I hypothetically "might be" a Red Chinese agent? That "thinking" nuclear devices are inappropriate tactical weapons will keep bad guys from ever using one against you and yours?
That you and I might join in to a "voluntary pact" that neither of us will ever buy or build a neutron bomb? To what purpose? Someone else will -- many others already have. This is like arguing that it would really be better if rattlesnakes didn't have fangs. You haven't told me what you propose to do about it, besides which you're trying to convince the wrong guy. If you think you can talk the snake out of his fangs, or the Pentagon out of their warheads, go and try. Let me now how you do.
Or are you saying you would vote for a politician who would throw me in prison for attempting to buy the same weapons owned and operated on a daily basis by that politician's uniformed agents -- that you would cooperate in jailing me for violating the government's MONOPOLY ON ARMED FORCE, just as prevailed in the Ukraine in 1933, in Germany in 1940, in Red China under Mao, in Cambodia under Pol Pot? If so, why don't you just COME OUT AND SAY SO?
I know for a FACT the Special Operations Command down in Florida has thousands of trained "shooters" and scores of "back-pack nukes" available, which they could infiltrate into China (or Idaho) and detonate next month, if they wanted to. Welcome to the nuclear age. Just how severe a police state would you be willing to submit to, if they could "guarantee" you none of your neighbors will ever own a "prohibited weapon" ... while the government retains all it wants?
Only thing is, don't delude yourself that YOU'LL get to make the final call on which weapons are "prohibited" to us peasants.
Uncle Sam has ALREADY effectively banned those "Quad 50s and mini guns and mortars" which you discuss as though I could go down and buy one at Wal-Mart this afternoon. They'll want all the handguns and "sniper rifles" next. Look at once-free England and Australia.
There are only two sides here. Are you going to join with me -- and the Founding Fathers -- in declaring it's the birthright of every American to possess "every terrible weapon of the soldier"? Or are you going to join the parade of yellow-bellied compromisers, selling away my birthright as well as your own, whining, "Well OK, we certainly don't want to be called UNREASONABLE, so I'm willing to sell my neighbor's right to bear certain really DANGEROUS WEAPONS, along with my own, for the chimercial bowl of porridge you call 'security.' Where do I sign on to support your latest 'reasonable gun control' bill? ..."
CAN YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE UP THEIRS? DO YOU BELIEVE NO GOVERNMENT WILL EVER AGAIN MURDER ITS OWN CITIZENS? It was Thomas Paine who wrote (I may be paraphrasing) "It would be a more peaceful world if all men would lay down their arms. But because there are evil men who WILL not give up their arms, therefore men of good will DARE not give up their arms, or the evil would run among the good as wolves among sheep."
If we stopped meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, why would they want to go to the trouble of destroying us? Do you spend all your days aching for a chance to nuke Iraq or Bosnia? With folks successfully smuggling tons of cocaine and marijuana into this country every WEEK, do you really think they couldn't smuggle in a nuke -- or a couple drums of Sarin gas -- right now, if they had adequate motivation?
It's the ambitious, imperialist, meddling socialist "world police" leaders in place in Washington today -- who insist on a MONOPOLY in such armed force -- who are the folks most likely to DRAG us into such a conflict. The very people to whom you would grant an unchallenged MONOPOLY on such force are the ones who are most likely to do mischief with it. The Founders knew the best way to curtail such ambitions was to make sure such men faced, here at home, a citizen militia well enough armed to overthrow them the moment they usurped a SINGLE power not properly delegated to them.
Has Washington not usurped such undelegated powers, droves of them, for at least the past 90 years, through sheerest chicanery and threats of brute force? Do they no longer live in fear of us armed citizens? Why not? Because 70 years of compromise have reduced us to laughable windbags with deer rifles, of course.
Just how many of your rights -- and mine -- are you willing to trade away in exchange for someone lulling you to sleep with lullabye promises that they can thereby PROTECT YOU FROM EVERY DANGER?
# # #
Another reader today sent me Andrew Fletcher's 1698 "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias," familiar to all the Founders, wherein he coined the very term "well-regulated militia" which is so much under discussion today (albeit by people would probably wouldn't bother to read the phrase at its source if you set it in front of them.)
Find Fletcher's essay at
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/history/foreign/fletdisc.html
I'll close with just a portion:
"A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued eight hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a good militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia. ...
"And I cannot see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught the use of them. ...
"Is it not a shame that any man who possesses an estate, and is at the same time healthful and young, should not fit himself by all means for the defence of that, and his country, rather than to pay taxes to maintain a mercenary, who though he may defend Mm during a war, will be sure to insult and enslave him in time of peace. Men must not think that any country can be in a constant posture of defence, without some trouble and charge; but certainly it is better to undergo this, and to preserve our liberty with honour, than to be subjected to heavy taxes, and yet have it insolently ravished from us, to our present oppression, and the lasting misery of our posterity. ..."
V.S.
johnster999
Member
The starting point for this discussion has to be:
The founders very clearly intended for us to always be able to possess and carry AT LEAST small arms such as firearms and blades, equivalents of which were available at that time. Also, clearly an auto rifle is still just a rifle with a minor mechanical difference.
Above this level of armament, it could be argued that the courts can determine reasonable limits.
The founders very clearly intended for us to always be able to possess and carry AT LEAST small arms such as firearms and blades, equivalents of which were available at that time. Also, clearly an auto rifle is still just a rifle with a minor mechanical difference.
Above this level of armament, it could be argued that the courts can determine reasonable limits.
- Status
