Rhetoric question...why should machine guns be okay, but not nukes?

[jlbraun]

@ctdonath, hugh damright, gordon fink

I think that I finally have a handle on an argument ya'll may find interesting. It encompasses the fact that individuals have the indubitable right to own nukes under the 2a, but still demonstrates how owning them is incompatible with being a member of a community that holds the Constitution as its highest law.

Do you all know what "sandbagging" in competitive sports is? It's overstating your handicap so you get to play in a division where you can easily whomp other players, instead of playing in the division you truly qualify for. Think of a Division I football team going up against a Division III team - or even a junior high team.

To me, an individual owning a nuke - or several - while still wanting all the protection being a citizen gets you is "sandbagging" in the geopolitical sense. One might have the right to do it, but it's bad form. Why isn't that individual out there playing with the big boys?

Additionally, one's state is now liable for all the damage caused by a citizens' new "recreational" nuclear device. No, there's no level of personal or corporate financial capacity even remotely enough to cover the accidental use of a nuclear weapon - just the physical damage would be immense, but think of the effect on financial markets. The buck has to stop somewhere, someone with deep pockets. No one but a state has deep enough pockets to be financially liable for accidental use of a nuke.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What principles? There is no principle which says that individuals have a right to alter or to abolish government, or a right to nukes, or anything of that nature. There is no principle which says that a pointy stick, a rifle, and a nuclear bomb must be treated the same. The Bill of Rights declares principles of free government and federal government, not principles of absurdity.

I do not believe that it is possible that I am "completely incorrect" in my assertion that a BOR declares principles of free government. I have read the original Bills of Rights of the original States, and in most instances they declare principles of free government. When Madison proposed the USBOR to Congress, he said that one of the things they do is to "lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government".

The "Bill of Rights" - the first ten amendments to the Constitution - limit, prohibit, and/or specify specific powers granted , and duties assigned, to those of us elected or appointed to fill specific positions of authority and duty in our union's three governing bodies, and of those occupying similar positions in the several states.


The "Bill of Rights" doesn't declare principles, it engaged them as maxims into government. Seems you still don't get this even after quoting what Madison said!

I tend to think that this question, this question of where machine guns fit in, may be one of those things that is properly left up to each State to decide for itself, such that machine guns might be banned in one State and perfectly legal in another ... I don't see why people need to argue about what values to force on every State against their will.

The Second Amendment is not a value forced upon a state. It is a prohibition on the state to infringe upon the right of each citizen.



And these:

A collective right, not an individual right. How could you not know that?

I think the idea of an individual right to check/alter/abolish government is completely antithetical to the idea of free government. It is the people, the majority, that have a right to alter or to abolish government. An individual with a personal nuclear weapon is not controlled by the majority, and so he is a threat to free government.

Does that mean a citizen with a rock in his pocket, not controlled by that same majority, is a threat as well? A person(law abiding citizen) with a nuclear weapon is not a threat to those in government unless those in government pose a threat to him. It's the same with the rock. As long as our government is staffed with law abiding citizens who are aware of and recognize the power of the people to alter or abolish the form of government, all is well.

The arms - from the rock to the nuke - is only for when government is staffed with usurpers, tyrants, or dictators who will not step down when we alter or abolish that form of government. The power of the body of citizens to alter or overthrow our form of government comes from the right of each individual to choose to alter or abolish our form of government. On the same token, the power of the body of citizens to keep our form of government also comes from the right of each individual to so choose. The group with the most power(the majority) will get their way. The arms each individual has assures they are able to achieve their end.

Note that arms kept in the hands of the state is antithetical to this. With the state keeping and bearing the arms, the majority who have chosen to alter or abolish the form of government lack the means to enforce their choice, and if that armed government - now in the minority - wishes to stay in power, it's tough doo-doo for the majority. I don't think you could count on that government to hand over the proper portion of it's store of arms to that majority in opposition to it. Bottom line, it is about the right of each individual to choose, and not some supposed right of a collective. When enough individuals make the choice, the body of citizens acquires the power.



Constitution of Maryland
Article 1.
That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

I'm glad hugh damright isn't in charge.


As for owning a nuke, I'm already part way there. So is everyone else, it seems. The US has a count of them somewhere in the low five digits. Guessing at 30,000 nukes, with 300,000,000 people in this country, I own about .01% of a nuke. I don't mind sharing it with my 10,000 closest friends!(I hope it's a big one!)

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[LDL707]

If I were to respond to everything I want to respond to in this thread, I would be typing for a week. Rather, as there seem to be several distinct schools of thought, I’m going to address each camp as a whole.

If you don’t feel like reading through all of this, please take a look at the last couple of lines at least. I developed a possible argument against nukes that might still be intellectually consistent with my argument in favor of FA weapons.

On to my responses:

The “nukes are too dangerous for people to own” camp:

This category includes all the people who claimed that a nuclear ND would kill a lot of people, the people who said that a nuke has too high an uncertainty of casualties, the people who argued that mere possession of a nuke is a threat, and those who argued that nukes are too dangerous because it’s difficult to safely store them.

These arguments sure sound a lot like the arguments that the anti-gun crowd use against us. By arguing these points, you are ceding that there are weapons too dangerous for a person to be trusted with. Once you do this, it opens the door for someone to argue that a machine gun is too dangerous for a person to be trusted with. And then a semi-automatic weapon. And then a knife…

I especially enjoy the comments about safely storing nukes. Maybe it should be okay to keep them as long as we put trigger locks on them and keep them locked up so small children can’t get to them? Doesn’t this argument sound familiar to you?

The “nukes are not arms” camp:

This category includes those who said that a nuke isn’t covered by the 2nd Amendment because nukes can’t be used without hurting anyone, those who claimed that there is no proper use for a nuke, those who said that nukes aren’t arms because they’re un-aimed and uncontrollable, and my favorite in this camp, and the poster who argued that a nuke can’t just kill one person.

I apologize for starting this thread. If only I knew how simple the answer was! I missed the fine print that the Framers tucked into the 2nd Amendment. If you get out your magnifying glass, you can clearly see that it says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (that can be used without hurting people, that have a “proper” use, that are aim-able and controllable, and that can be used to kill only one person at a time) shall not be infringed.”

Silly me.

The bottom line is, the Constitution doesn’t define “arms.” I am certainly going to reject the definitions that you arbitrarily came up with.

The “this is a stupid thread” camp:

Thank you all for setting me straight. Also, thank you for your concise, well-reasoned, intellectually consistent argument that ended this debate leaving everyone satisfied.
Oh…wait. Nobody offered one of those.

This debate is critical to the debate over our gun rights. How can you claim to support your rights to keep and bear arms if you haven’t given the issue any serious thought? Think critically, post a response, and debate it with people. Maybe you’ll see that your opinions aren’t really very sound…or maybe you’ll come up with the solution to the problem.

And, finally, the “miscellaneous” camp:

This includes those who argued that the fact that a person couldn’t possibly be able to cover his liability for using a nuke, those who held that it’s okay to ban importation and manufacture, those who said that society would ostracize one who owns a nuke, those who claimed that environmental damage from a nuke would make it okay to prohibit them, and the people who asked what one needs a nuke for.

I don’t see how any of these are really relevant. Liability and being ostracized by society are important concerns, but they don’t address whether the Constitution guarantees our right to own a nuke or not.

To the people who said that we can simply control the supply of nukes by banning importation and not selling off any of the ones that are currently in existence…well, would it be okay with you if the government decided to do the same with guns?

The environmental damage concern is another issue that seems to be lacking. One could argue the same about guns. Lead is bad for us. Does that justify limiting Constitutionally protected rights?

Someone even asked what somebody could need a nuke for. Are you kidding me? I don’t get how people can recycle the anti-gunners’ arguments and not even notice it.

Moving on…

When I started this thread, I was looking for a good argument against nukes. We really should have one that is intellectually consistent with the rest of our argument. Even if you believe that people should be allowed, under the Constitution, to own nukes, pragmatically speaking, we can’t go arguing that out in public. We have enough of an image problem as it is by wanting to have fully automatic weapons. It probably isn’t a good PR move to go advocating private ownership of nuclear weapons.

If you were a judge, and this issue came into your court, how would write your decision?

I think I may have an argument that would almost satisfy my original question. Please let me know what you think:

As the Constitution was written, it would seem as though the Framers would have wanted us to be able to own nukes. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, without limiting the kind of arms. Thus, I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a nuclear weapon.

However, I also have a natural right to self-defense. It is probably the most basic right that human beings have. If someone comes at me with a weapon, I can defend myself.

If someone were to attack me with a nuclear weapon, however, I would not have the ability to defend myself. Another person could kill me with a nuclear weapon without my even knowing that he’s there. Furthermore, even if I knew he was there, he could kill me, and I would be unable to offer any kind of defense.

Thus, a nuclear weapon is incompatible with my natural right to self-defense, and may thus be regulated.

Please poke holes in that.

ETA: jlbraun, I'd be interested in reading your book when you get it finished

 

[Lucky]

If they hit you over the head with a baseball bat while you sleep you don't defend yourself either. I don't think that's a good reason to 'pre-emptively defend yourself' and confiscate all baseball bats.

Nice summation of the thread so far though.

I still think people should simply state, ver batim, the alterations they would make to your constitution, rather than explaining why nukes are bad. Instead of trying to convince us WHY they shouldn't be considered as arms, when they are in every aspect referred to as arms (nuclear dis-ARMament, etc), it would be preferable to hear HOW the constitution should read to solve this dilemna.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The buck has to stop somewhere, someone with deep pockets. No one but a state has deep enough pockets to be financially liable for accidental use of a nuke.

There are a few wealthy individuals and large corporations who could probably manage it, but there is little utility in the proposition. However, the argument you are really making is that even states can’t own and use nuclear weapons responsibly. Of course, that argument can easily be scaled all the way back to one man and a pointy stick.

This is a frustrating job. How can we sell the undecided—let alone the anti-gunners—on the right to arms, when we can’t even sell the gun owners and firearms enthusiasts on it?

Have I not demonstrated that the private ownership of nuclear weapons, however impractical, is not at all incompatible with the intellectual concept of a right to arms or even with the Second Amendment?

There simply is no nuclear paradox.

~G. Fink

 

[JohnKSa]

There simply is no nuclear paradox.

I agree though I get to that destination via a different path.

 

[Lucky]

I think Gordon was pretty tight in his logic, and it disproved most other arguments at the same time. It's not easy to accept, and I personally see problems with nuclear proliferation, but thats subsequent.

 

[Fosbery]

I stick to what I said earlier. Everyone has the right to own nuclear weapons. But with that right (and every right) comes responsibility. In this case, the responsibility is to take reasonable steps to ensure you don't accidentally or negligently kill anyone (i.e. following the four rules). I don't see how that could possibly be a problem. Don't leave a loaded gun pointing at your kid, don't leave a 'loaded' nuke in the middle of a city. Same thing to me.

 

[JShirley]

Everyone does not have a right to nuclear arms.

The Constitution placed restrictions on the most powerful weapon of the day (Article 1, Section 10), the ship of war, whereas no restrictions were placed on militia weapons. From this, it can be easily extrapolated that modern squad-level ("militia") weapons are specifically protected by the Constitution, but instruments of national policy (bombers, warships, nukes) are not. Further, it is the Congress which is charged to "provide for the common Defence" (common meaning National, of course; Art 1, sec 8). Nuclear devices are, yes, Virginia, instruments of national defense, and so out of the purview of the individual.

Anyone who can read and carefully extrapolate the Constitution honestly should come to a similar conclusion. Here's a link for y'all: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

John

 

[JShirley]

The Constitution says "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, ...".
...Nothing in the Constitution indicates limiting what weapons individuals could own

You're contradicting yourself, Carl. A ship of war= weapon.

 

[Fosbery]

That says a state, not an individual.

Personally, I don't care what the constitution says. I'm talking about human rights to private property, not the paticular rights specifically laid out in the bill of rights.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JShirley

I beg to differ with you. The Constitution did not place restrictions on the most powerful weapon of the day in Article 1, Section 10, - the ship of war - it placed the restriction upon the the several states. It also said a state could not keep troops(without the consent of Congress). It said(and says to this day) nothing about restricting the ownership of the "most powerful weapon of the day" from the people.

Then, of course, there is this "...unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Those ships of war had to be able to come from some where during an invasion. Cant build them over night! They came from the people who owned them, and the troops would have come from the militia at that point, too, and employed by the state.

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. B.E.Wood

 

[ksnecktieman]

I wish to disagree, Jshirley. Article one, section ten specifically restricts the individual states. Not the individual citizen. The United States government is permitted to issue "letters of mark, and reprisal". If I understand that properly it is to allow privately owned warships to be used in the service of the United States. I think implicit in the meaning of that is the right to own personally, a warship.

Excerpt from article one, section ten

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,

 

[JShirley]

Exactly. Ships of war were under congressional control.

But I notice no-one addressed the Congressional obligation to provide for the national defense in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[LAK]

"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." - Tench Coxe - as published the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[jlbraun]

What about the Federalist Papers? Is there anything in there that would indicate what they thought?

 

[Lucky]

JShirley I think they're saying the the States were under Congressional control, not their citizens, the state governments. So a citizen of a Rhode Island could own a warship, but the government of Rhode Island could not.

 

[hugh damright]

There was a time when it was understood that the federal government operated upon States and not upon individuals. So if the US wanted to prohibit ships of war, the only thing within their power was to prohibit the States from having ships of war. And then it would be up to each State to prohibit individual ships of war.

 

[Lucky]

But if a corporation is an individual under law, then each shipping convoy has the right to self defence!

 

[JohnKSa]

So if the US wanted to prohibit ships of war, the only thing within their power was to prohibit the States from having ships of war.

Correct.

 

[JShirley]

There was a time when it was understood that the federal government operated upon States and not upon individuals

If this was the case...I guess there wouldn't have been any point in defining the individual definition of treason, would there have been?

Can't have it both ways, guys.

 

[LDL707]

Everyone does not have a right to nuclear arms.

The Constitution placed restrictions on the most powerful weapon of the day (Article 1, Section 10), the ship of war, whereas no restrictions were placed on militia weapons. From this, it can be easily extrapolated that modern squad-level ("militia") weapons are specifically protected by the Constitution, but instruments of national policy (bombers, warships, nukes) are not. Further, it is the Congress which is charged to "provide for the common Defence" (common meaning National, of course; Art 1, sec 8). Nuclear devices are, yes, Virginia, instruments of national defense, and so out of the purview of the individual.

This is patently inaccurate. As others have mentioned, the Constitution places this restriction on the states, not on the individual.

Exactly. Ships of war were under congressional control.

But I notice no-one addressed the Congressional obligation to provide for the national defense in Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress is required to provide for the common defense. But that doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to.

An Army is an "instrument of national defense" too, but you'll notice that the Constitution allows Congress to call up the militia. Where do you get the idea that a militia staffed by private citizens and armed with private weapons is okay, but a private navy, staffed by private citizens and armed with private weapons is not?

 

[scout26]

To veer this thread slightly off course. Here's my take of why individuals can't/shouldn't own nukes. Call it "Scout26's Swinging Arms Theory". You can take your ordinary firearm, even machine gun out and use it on your property/local range/shooting area. You are only liable if you do something unsafe and/or cause harm to someone else, either on or off that property. And when you are done shooting, I have not suffered any ill effects from you "Swinging your Arms. However if you choose to play with your nuke (unless you have an extremely large underground test factility), there's a pretty good chance you will spread radioactive material beyond the confines of your property and/or deny me the use of that public area where you choose to set off your nuke. You have then swung your arms and connected with my nose. Since there is no way you can safely use your nuke (unless once again you have that underground test facility.) Your rights ended at my nose. Yep you guessed it, your Gamma rays enter my body and I'm calling El Tejon.


(I won't even go into the "Hey Jim Bob, hold my beer, while I light the fuse on this thing." factor. )

We now return you to the regularly scheduled serious discussion of this issue.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

LDL707

The Congress is required to provide for the common defense. But that doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to.

Exactly right! Article I, Section 8 starts: Congress shall have power: Not "congress shall have THE power:", but Congress shall have power:

When we gave power to Congress, we didn't relinquish any of our power. We didn't DELEGATE power to Congress, we SHARE our power with Congress.

Woody

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II....A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859. Don't tell me that the states never considered the Second Amendment applicable to them. And at this point in time, there was no Fourteenth Amendment!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

scout26

To veer this thread slightly off course. Here's my take of why individuals can't/shouldn't own nukes. Call it "Scout26's Swinging Arms Theory". You can take your ordinary firearm, even machine gun out and use it on your property/local range/shooting area. You are only liable if you do something unsafe and/or cause harm to someone else, either on or off that property. And when you are done shooting, I have not suffered any ill effects from you "Swinging your Arms. However if you choose to play with your nuke (unless you have an extremely large underground test factility), there's a pretty good chance you will spread radioactive material beyond the confines of your property and/or deny me the use of that public area where you choose to set off your nuke. You have then swung your arms and connected with my nose. Since there is no way you can safely use your nuke (unless once again you have that underground test facility.) Your rights ended at my nose. Yep you guessed it, your Gamma rays enter my body and I'm calling El Tejon.

You bring up a good point. It leads right into the solution:

The Second Amendment only protects the keeping and bearing of arms. How they are used is open for Congress to govern. There is no problem with a law forbidding the use of a nuke, be it for training or just to celebrate the 4th of July, including for how it may be used in defense of the nation. It's no different for a law that says you may not fire your gun in the middle of downtown except in self defense, etc. Note that if those in government decide to enslave us, all bets are off, and you'll be glad you were able to keep one in your back yard bunker.

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." ...And I would add all those blatant and obvious encroachments as well!

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. [/p]