Rhetoric question...why should machine guns be okay, but not nukes?
- Thread starter LDL707
- Start date
- Status
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
A free State is empowered by the people, not by the person. There is no personal right to pass laws, to lay and collect taxes, to declare war, to raise and support armies, or to possess a nuclear weapon ... yet the people empower government to do these things.
Take for instance the idea of legislation ... I don't see how there could be an individual power to legislate (unless that individual happens to be the King). I suppose that if there were no government that we could all pass laws that apply on our own property ... and then if people formed a State and passed State laws we might say that each individual delegated such a power ... but that would not mean that every individual originally had the power to pass State legislation which bound others on their own property.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
LDL707
As far as "vote for Bush" and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you are addressing the USE of something(speech, language). As for that line that isn't there, we are strictly talking "keep" and "bear". Neither of those two aspects concerns use. The RKBA is absolute and inalienable. Another absolute and inalienable right would be the right to learn a language and communicate. Though that right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, the greater aspects of it's USES are enumerated and protected. See the difference?
johnster999
This won't work either. The Courts have no power to set limits. That is in the purview of Congress. Congress sets limits, and the Court adjudicates each case according to those limits. But, since Congress is prohibited to infringe upon the RKBA, there is no way to even draw that line you want without amending the Constitution. Anything short of that is a usurpation of power and is dishonest - just as dishonest and unconstitutional as the acts perpetrated by those in government who wrote, passed, and approved, and those there now who will not remove, that infringing law.
hugh damright
I've legislated. You may not spit on my lawn. You may not pontificate on my lawn. legislate vi to make or pass laws.
I'm fortunate that as an individual, I only need to make(legislate) law on my property, The state must pass law - the other aspect of "legislate". I am King on my property. I'm sovereign on my property. My forefathers delegated some of that power to legislate to Congress, the several states, counties, cities, and towns. I haven't taken any of that power back, but some in government have taken more than has been given. That is the crux of the matter.
Woody
"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood
As far as "vote for Bush" and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you are addressing the USE of something(speech, language). As for that line that isn't there, we are strictly talking "keep" and "bear". Neither of those two aspects concerns use. The RKBA is absolute and inalienable. Another absolute and inalienable right would be the right to learn a language and communicate. Though that right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, the greater aspects of it's USES are enumerated and protected. See the difference?
johnster999
This won't work either. The Courts have no power to set limits. That is in the purview of Congress. Congress sets limits, and the Court adjudicates each case according to those limits. But, since Congress is prohibited to infringe upon the RKBA, there is no way to even draw that line you want without amending the Constitution. Anything short of that is a usurpation of power and is dishonest - just as dishonest and unconstitutional as the acts perpetrated by those in government who wrote, passed, and approved, and those there now who will not remove, that infringing law.
hugh damright
I've legislated. You may not spit on my lawn. You may not pontificate on my lawn. legislate vi to make or pass laws.
I'm fortunate that as an individual, I only need to make(legislate) law on my property, The state must pass law - the other aspect of "legislate". I am King on my property. I'm sovereign on my property. My forefathers delegated some of that power to legislate to Congress, the several states, counties, cities, and towns. I haven't taken any of that power back, but some in government have taken more than has been given. That is the crux of the matter.
Woody
"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood
ctdonath
Member
So, to summarize the "RKBA and nukes" issue:
- The Founding Fathers actively opposed limiting the rights of individuals, and actively supported weapons ownership.
- The 2nd Amendment indicates no limitation on weapons whatsoever.
- The 2nd Amendment was written by people who owned "superweapons" of the era.
- The 2nd Amendment was written shortly after an armed populace used the full spectrum of weapons to defeat the world's reigning superpower.
- Nukes remain a hypothetical, as you can't buy one even if you had the cash + desire (as some do).
- A prohibition on nuke ownership won't stop someone who wants one and has the cash to buy one (thanks Vin).
- The Constitution presumes private ownership of battleships per the "Letters of Marque" clause, destroying the "no crew-served weapons" argument.
- Nukes cannot be used appropriately (per Cooper's Four Rules) as the operator cannot know for certain who is/isn't in range.
- Anyone exhibiting/threatening inappropriate weapon use can be forcibly disarmed by others.
Linguistic gymnastics on individual words (meaning of "keep", "bear", "arms"), and "they couldn't have imagined" arguments, all fail as the Founding Fathers were abundantly clear on the subjects. Being intelligent and literate, they meant what they said, with axioms well known. Being informed and educated, they understood what may change - and what may not. They did know of comparably-scaled technologies. They defended citizens owning "unlimited...terrible weapons of the soldier". They owned battleships and artillery. Small crews wiping out populations indiscriminately was not new or unknown (heck, it's downright Old Testament). Machineguns (or comparable) were known, albeit expensive and hard to manufacture. Explosives were known. They were firmly opposed to the notion of a soveriegn government telling citizens "you can't". The scale of terrible capabilities is not all that different from what we're arguing over, as populations & perceptions were proportional to today.
The only viable argument against nuke ownership is: inherent grave uncertainty of casualties.
- The Founding Fathers actively opposed limiting the rights of individuals, and actively supported weapons ownership.
- The 2nd Amendment indicates no limitation on weapons whatsoever.
- The 2nd Amendment was written by people who owned "superweapons" of the era.
- The 2nd Amendment was written shortly after an armed populace used the full spectrum of weapons to defeat the world's reigning superpower.
- Nukes remain a hypothetical, as you can't buy one even if you had the cash + desire (as some do).
- A prohibition on nuke ownership won't stop someone who wants one and has the cash to buy one (thanks Vin).
- The Constitution presumes private ownership of battleships per the "Letters of Marque" clause, destroying the "no crew-served weapons" argument.
- Nukes cannot be used appropriately (per Cooper's Four Rules) as the operator cannot know for certain who is/isn't in range.
- Anyone exhibiting/threatening inappropriate weapon use can be forcibly disarmed by others.
Linguistic gymnastics on individual words (meaning of "keep", "bear", "arms"), and "they couldn't have imagined" arguments, all fail as the Founding Fathers were abundantly clear on the subjects. Being intelligent and literate, they meant what they said, with axioms well known. Being informed and educated, they understood what may change - and what may not. They did know of comparably-scaled technologies. They defended citizens owning "unlimited...terrible weapons of the soldier". They owned battleships and artillery. Small crews wiping out populations indiscriminately was not new or unknown (heck, it's downright Old Testament). Machineguns (or comparable) were known, albeit expensive and hard to manufacture. Explosives were known. They were firmly opposed to the notion of a soveriegn government telling citizens "you can't". The scale of terrible capabilities is not all that different from what we're arguing over, as populations & perceptions were proportional to today.
The only viable argument against nuke ownership is: inherent grave uncertainty of casualties.
ctdonath
Member
"The people" is an aggregate of multiple persons.
"The people" is the sum total of the persons forming the group.
If persons do not have something, "the people" do not have it either.
As woodcdi notes, _I_ make the rules for _my_ property.
I make rules (laws) thereon. My whim is law there.
I levy taxes thereon (you want to use my property, you pay).
I may declare war insofar as I may forcibly remove or detain trespassers.
I arm and organize those who live thereon (army).
I choose the weaponry present thereon.
Nothing in the Constitution contravines this position (or a better statement thereof, being I whipped that off during a headache).
Anything government does which contradicts the above is unconstitutional (go look before you disagree), and superceeds my home rule only by threat of sheer force of arms acting outside powers granted by the Constitution.
progunner1957
member
Paranoia and fear fills the guilty mind and heart.
Life will not last long without the means to protect it.
Liberty will not long endure without the means to defend it.
Happiness will not ensue when living under autocratic, arbitrary rule.
The right to arms for the common man is the foundation to ensuring Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Which is why the some politicians despise the idea of an armed citizenry: Paranoia and fear fills the guilty mind and heart.
Life will not last long without the means to protect it.
Liberty will not long endure without the means to defend it.
Happiness will not ensue when living under autocratic, arbitrary rule.
The right to arms for the common man is the foundation to ensuring Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Which is why the some politicians despise the idea of an armed citizenry: Paranoia and fear fills the guilty mind and heart.
DigitalWarrior
Member
I believed that nuke are specifically allowed by the 2a.
I would support ammending the 2a to prevent it from being applied to Nuclear or Biological Weapons. Nuclear Weapons are too polluting. No person can expect to be able to discharge a weapon and pollute a hemisphere. Biological Weapons are incapable of being "aimed".
I strongly support Civilians owning RPGs. They are currently the most effective weapon of War, and they make a militia effective against superior technology.
DW
I would support ammending the 2a to prevent it from being applied to Nuclear or Biological Weapons. Nuclear Weapons are too polluting. No person can expect to be able to discharge a weapon and pollute a hemisphere. Biological Weapons are incapable of being "aimed".
I strongly support Civilians owning RPGs. They are currently the most effective weapon of War, and they make a militia effective against superior technology.
DW
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Of course a people are a collective of persons. But you are mistaken that a people cannot have a collective right unless each individual also has that right. That is simply not the nature of it.
No, you do not make the rules on your property and no your whim is not law. Can you legalize prostitution on your property? Can you legalize drugs? I can't make any sense out of your statement.
Running off tresspassers is not "war". You cannot draft me and make me participate. You cannot organize an army on your own property. You do not choose what weapons you can have on your own property. I just can't make any sense out of what you're saying.
The collective has powers beyond that of any individual. You cannot force me to pay you taxes on my property, my income, or anything of that nature, but the government can. You cannot raise an army, but the government can. You cannot draft me, but the government can. To say that you can charge me a cover fee or arm your family or run me off for trespassing is completely removed from the power to declare war, raise an army, and levy taxes. You do have the right to run off trespassers, to arm your family, and to charge a cover fee ... but you do not have the right to declare war, to raise an army, or to levy taxes.
Gordon Fink
Member
That we have a right to nuclear arms is self-evident. Lots of folks have them these days. However, it’s arguable that the right is more civil than natural, as the manufacture, deployment, and maintenance of nuclear weapons require a great deal of cooperation.
That said, if an individual can do these things without harming anyone else, then he is free to do so.
~G. Fink
That said, if an individual can do these things without harming anyone else, then he is free to do so.
~G. Fink
Travis Lee
Member
230 years ago, the most powerful weapons of the time would have been a ship equipped with cannons and marines. Individual citizens did in fact own such weapons, weapons platforms and pay for such armed men. How is this functionally different from Bill Gates excercising the right to own and maintain an Nuclear Aircraft carrier and missiles with nuclear warheads?
Of course if he ever lit one off in Seattle, I have no doubt that the criminal charges, the civil suits, and the lynch mobs would be an effective deterrent to the next lunatic billionaire.
The State's legitimate authority to wage a just war is simply an extension of an individual's right to self defense.
--Travis--
Of course if he ever lit one off in Seattle, I have no doubt that the criminal charges, the civil suits, and the lynch mobs would be an effective deterrent to the next lunatic billionaire.
The State's legitimate authority to wage a just war is simply an extension of an individual's right to self defense.
--Travis--
Nukes are a Public Health Hazard. Unless properly stored and maintained they can GO OFF acidentally and kill millions. It is the same with Bio Weapons and Chemical Weapons.
So, while owning a full auto weapon or other "military" weapons SHOULD be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, the owning of a nuke, bio weapon or chemical weapon could still be curtailed with the understanding that it is a hazard to the public health and commerce.
So, while owning a full auto weapon or other "military" weapons SHOULD be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, the owning of a nuke, bio weapon or chemical weapon could still be curtailed with the understanding that it is a hazard to the public health and commerce.
Crosshair
Member
Personaly, my ruler is "Can it be used responsibly and not phisicly harm anyone."
Machine guns = Yes
M203 = Yes
RPG-7 = Yes
TOW missle = Yes
120mm mortar = Yes
155mm artillery = Yes
If you have the money and a range that will let you use them, all these weapons can be used safely for plinking and shooting targets. However a nuke is a different ball game. Even if I burried it underground and set it off, others will still be harmed by the radiation and the mini-earthquake it will cause.
Machine guns = Yes
M203 = Yes
RPG-7 = Yes
TOW missle = Yes
120mm mortar = Yes
155mm artillery = Yes
If you have the money and a range that will let you use them, all these weapons can be used safely for plinking and shooting targets. However a nuke is a different ball game. Even if I burried it underground and set it off, others will still be harmed by the radiation and the mini-earthquake it will cause.
progunner1957
member
Substitute the word "guns" for the word "nukes" and you have what some of the antigun bigots seem to think.
Sistema1927
Member
It was quite common for ordinary citizens to own artillery at least as good, if not better, as that fielded by most armies. It was equally common for ordinary citizens to own warships at least as good, if not better, as that controlled by most navies.
When the Constitution was written , there were those private citizens who owned ships with the capability of shelling New York, Boston, or Charleston. I think that these would have been construed as "weapons of mass destruction".
I have not quite wrapped my mind around the "private ownership of nuclear weapons" issue, but I don't think that I need to contemplate it too much prior to the opening of the first local "Nukes R Us" store.
I would, however, like to own a towed 105mm howitzer to go along with a suppressed H&K MP5, and might one day want to arm a yacht with a couple of 8 pounder guns. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers would have any problems with any of the items on that list.
m0ntels
Member
An AK-47 is no more powerful than a bolt action Ruger 77 or Winchester 70. One just happens to cycle faster than the other. A MP5 isnt much more potent that a S&W 39. Full auto doesnt make anything more deadly. Full autos dont hurt anything any more besides the owner's wallet. Other than that, they are the same as what you can buy now...why not let people buy them?
Randy
Randy
squarooticus
Member
I think we're muddying the issue: the OP presupposes that possessing and maintaining nukes would be a rational thing for a person to do in a society in which such things were allowed. I assert that it wouldn't be: it simply would not be allowed in our top-down society, where the state has a virtual monopoly on force in a (misguided) trade for protection; and in an ideal society (IMO Rothbard/Hoppe private property anarchy) people would be discouraged from aggression by market forces, so there would be no reasons beyond interest (backed up by a lot of money) or insanity (also backed up by a lot of money) to possess such weapons.
Given the potential liability posed by such weapons and, unlike private ownership of firearms, lacking any demonstrable defensive purpose rewarding their possession, no rational insurance company/security contractor would agree to insure a person who was known to possess such a thing. It would either (a) be quickly found out as the possessor bragged about it, potentially leading to his being uninsured and/or expelled from his community, exposing him to strong-man predators, or (b) be hidden out-of-reach of anyone but the owner, at which point the question of what effect it has on others is moot.
It is at least possible that some large security contractors would possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggression by outside forces (e.g., state actors that make a business out of aggression), but it's more likely that this level of force would be covered by reinsurers making use of economies of scale rather than by local private security firms.
I should also point out that in such a world, all property is privately owned, and most owners will have an incentive to keep things like this off their property. Under such a system, you could expect better and more effective (and yet less intrusive) detection of prohibited materials at property boundaries. There would be no public roads as such through which to smuggle things across long distances without being caught.
Cheers,
Kyle
Given the potential liability posed by such weapons and, unlike private ownership of firearms, lacking any demonstrable defensive purpose rewarding their possession, no rational insurance company/security contractor would agree to insure a person who was known to possess such a thing. It would either (a) be quickly found out as the possessor bragged about it, potentially leading to his being uninsured and/or expelled from his community, exposing him to strong-man predators, or (b) be hidden out-of-reach of anyone but the owner, at which point the question of what effect it has on others is moot.
It is at least possible that some large security contractors would possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggression by outside forces (e.g., state actors that make a business out of aggression), but it's more likely that this level of force would be covered by reinsurers making use of economies of scale rather than by local private security firms.
I should also point out that in such a world, all property is privately owned, and most owners will have an incentive to keep things like this off their property. Under such a system, you could expect better and more effective (and yet less intrusive) detection of prohibited materials at property boundaries. There would be no public roads as such through which to smuggle things across long distances without being caught.
Cheers,
Kyle
ConstitutionCowboy
member
hugh damright
Woody
"The right protected by the Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it.
Confusion on your part is not from a lack of clarity on my part. Laws do not make things legal. Laws make things illegal. Prostitution is already made illegal in the state I live in, therefore, I don't need to make it illegal on my property. Same with drug abuse. My whim IS the law on my property. I can forbid you to do anything I want to do on my property. I don't have to make a law to allow you to walk on my property, but I can forbid you to trespass.
Confusion on your part is not from a lack of clarity on my part. Running off trespassers is no different than sending foreign nationals that are here back home. I can't draft you to defend my property. But, if you want to live on my property, I can certainly require you to defend it. I can organize an army if I so choose. Only the several state have been forbidden to keep an army(without permission from Congress). Only the several states have been forbidden to declare war(without permission from Congress).
Yeah, so? It isn't MY property if it is yours, correct?
The way you are using "collective" here is communism, pure and simple. I suggest you look up the word "collective" and use it accordingly, as everyone else does.
Does repeating something make it more valid(or invalid)?
So what if some of those things are removed from each other. I can still do all "five" on my property. Levying taxes is the same as charging you a fee to step upon my property.
Woody
"The right protected by the Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it.
Last edited:
Gents, I submit to you the one, the only, one-person nuclear power ever to grace the pages of fiction: Dmitri "Raven" Ravinoff, from the novel Snow Crash!
From Wikipedia
An Aleut native who works as a mercenary. His preferred weapons are glass knives—undetectable by security systems and reputed to be molecule-thin at the edges—and throwing spears. He travels on a motorcycle whose sidecar has been replaced with a hydrogen bomb that will automatically detonate if his heart stops beating. Raven has the phrase "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tattooed on his forehead, a sign of being arrested for some violent crime at least once in his life. His stated goal in life is to "nuke America." The combination of his fighting ability, conscienceless killing, and personal nuclear umbrella prompt Stephenson to refer to Raven in his introduction as "the baddest $^#*&(%^% in the world."
Based on this, I think that if you want to be nuclear-armed, so be it - but then you've entered the realm of a "one-person state" because of the massive power you have. You wield power and authority on par with a state, so expect to be dealt with as a state, not a person. You have a right to possess a nuke, but that means that no country will likely want anything to do with you or want you in their borders at all. Sort of like, "Yes, you have the right ot have a nuke, but we also have the right to not let you in our country."
From Wikipedia
An Aleut native who works as a mercenary. His preferred weapons are glass knives—undetectable by security systems and reputed to be molecule-thin at the edges—and throwing spears. He travels on a motorcycle whose sidecar has been replaced with a hydrogen bomb that will automatically detonate if his heart stops beating. Raven has the phrase "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tattooed on his forehead, a sign of being arrested for some violent crime at least once in his life. His stated goal in life is to "nuke America." The combination of his fighting ability, conscienceless killing, and personal nuclear umbrella prompt Stephenson to refer to Raven in his introduction as "the baddest $^#*&(%^% in the world."
Based on this, I think that if you want to be nuclear-armed, so be it - but then you've entered the realm of a "one-person state" because of the massive power you have. You wield power and authority on par with a state, so expect to be dealt with as a state, not a person. You have a right to possess a nuke, but that means that no country will likely want anything to do with you or want you in their borders at all. Sort of like, "Yes, you have the right ot have a nuke, but we also have the right to not let you in our country."
squarooticus
Member
This was exactly the point I was trying to make, in a much more readable way. Good job.
Kyle
Corollary to "being dealt with as a state" is that you're now subject to politics at an entirely different level. International politics among nuclear nations is, at best, a nasty, tribalistic, anarchic mess interspersed with nuclear brinksmanship, assassination, and economic warfare. To become a one-person country by possessing a nuke in this environment is to interact with whole nations in their environment of pure anarchy and utter paranoia. Even if they can't touch you because of your deadman switch, you're going to have to interact with someone to get water or food, and that gives other nations leverage over you.
Interacting and surviving as a one-person state is to pull back the veil that exposes the simple unblinking naked force that is international nuclear politics. Surviving in such an environment would demand 24/7 vigiliance and ice water in your veins.
That said, it's entirely possible for one person nuclear states to exist, but it's not likely that they'll exist as truly independent entities, but rather be subservient to one national interest or another for their physical security and subsistence.
Interacting and surviving as a one-person state is to pull back the veil that exposes the simple unblinking naked force that is international nuclear politics. Surviving in such an environment would demand 24/7 vigiliance and ice water in your veins.
That said, it's entirely possible for one person nuclear states to exist, but it's not likely that they'll exist as truly independent entities, but rather be subservient to one national interest or another for their physical security and subsistence.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Gee,
We had no problem aiming them at Nagasaki and Hiroshima...
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting them as well.
We had no problem aiming them at Nagasaki and Hiroshima...
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting them as well.
- Status
