What might be a rational metric for determining where the second ammendment ends?

[Habeed]

The Supreme Court has decided that we, the people, have the right to bear arms for our our personal defense. The question is, how do you decide HOW big a weapon is too much before it should be disallowed?

I know there's the current morass of squabbles over "assault" weapons, the 26 year old ban on machine guns, etc. But HOW do you decide what the limit is, and where do you, THR members, think the limit should be? Let me try to make a list of arms, from least powerful to most, and you decide where on the spectrum the second amendment no longer applies.

1. Various melee weapons
2. Muzzle loading blackpowder rifles and pistols
3. Tasers (ranged electroshock weapons that incapacitate)
4. Revolvers
5. Semi-automatic handguns
6. High-Cap magazine handguns (having triple the number of shots does matter)
7. magazine fed bolt action rifles
8. semi-automatic magazine fed rifles
9. High caliber semi-automatic rifles (0.50, 20 mm)
10. Full-automatic personal weapons
11. Full-automatic machine guns, man portable
12. Vehicle mounted machine guns
13. Rocket Launchers
14. Mortars and flamethrowers (flamethrowers are higher up because the burns are horrifically inhumane)
15. Up-armored vehicles with mounted weapons
16. Bradleys (APCs)
17. Abrams Tanks
18. Remotely controlled drone aircraft armed with missiles and bombs
19. Attack Helicopters
20. Air Superiority Fighters
21. Single-pilot bombers loaded with conventional bombs
22. Multiple-crew bombers loaded with conventional bombs
23. Naval Destroyers
25. Naval Submarines
26. Aircraft carrier groups
27. Bombing aircraft loaded with atomic bombs
28. Nuclear tipped cruise missiles
29. ICBMs
30. Nuclear Submarines loaded with sea launched ICBMs.


There does have to be a limit. A case could be made that since in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, they could not have predicted weapons better than at number 2, that is where the limit should be. Were wealthy land owners at the time allowed their own personal cannon? If so, that would tell us much about the intent behind the authors of the Constitution.

Perhaps some of the later entries on the list are absurd, but keep in mind they are theoretically affordable for a small number of billionaires.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

If you read the Amendment there IS a limit. Arms. Some of the weapons you listed are classified as ordinance, vehicles that have ordinance mounted destructive devices, or bombs. All arms fall under the second.

 

[Sam1911]

We've had similar discussions before (here's just one of them: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=552182, here's another: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=665980) that dig into the questions of what military armaments are covered by the 2nd Amendment and what aren't.

The answer usually is best determined through an analysis of the definition of the word "arms" -vs.- the word "ordnance." That may be the most practical delineator any of us can cling to (though much ordinance at the time of the American Revolution was actually in private hands).

 

[BSA1]

There does have to be a limit.

Why?

A case could be made that since in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, they could not have predicted weapons better than at number 2, that is where the limit should be.

Both sides in the War of Independence were armed with the same type of state of the art weapons.

Were wealthy land owners at the time allowed their own personal cannon?

Yes

If so, that would tell us much about the intent behind the authors of the Constitution.

Try taking some early American history classes at your local college and become informed.

 

[Agsalaska]

The first thread posted in reply number 3 by Sam1911 has the best argument for the defense against a government of tyrants I have read in a while in the first 5 or 6 posts.


A couple of thoughts on this subject.

To say the framers could not have invisioned the massive weapons of today is entirely true. To dismiss the idea that it would not have made a difference if they had is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. It is very convenient for pro 2nd supporters to say it wouldn't and for anti 2nd folks to say that it would. When you put into context the ability and reach of individual men then vs today you are comparing apples to oranges. I dont know if the founders would have supported the idea that a single man could build a nuclear weapon at his own will to defend himself against the government. I believe you could make a very compelling argument that they would not support that idea.

But that is where the argument gets lost in a bunch of questions you will never get answers to. Even the current laws we have in place right, which I do believe could be less restrictive, are still far more effective tools agains government that most countries have. Again this is argued very well by Sam1911 in the first of the two threads. But ultimately the government, especially local government, could not subjugate its citizens without a lot of bloodshed. Thats why they dont.

 

[jim243]

There does have to be a limit.

No, there is no limit. The Amendment has to do with the "RIGHT" to bear and keep "ARMS" not what an arm is, without any definition as to what an arm is. If my memory serves me right I believe the "Rebels" (USA) had cannon, rockets, ships, subs (or tried to use them) and explosives, snipers, army, navy and marines (The Wright brothers came later or there would have been an Air Force). Maybe a ballon division, but that came during the Civil War.(part of the siginal core)

Basicly, whatever it takes to protect and insure the "rights" to life and liberty.

There's that nasty word again "RIGHTS". It's not called the bill of Arms, but the Bill or Rights (the first 10 admendments to the Consitution).

So to answer your question, there is no limit, or should there be as to what you can use to protect the "Consitution" and the inalienable RIGHTS of it's citizens.

Just the view of the Founding Fathers.
Jim

 

[beatledog7]

It is financial cost that limits one's firearm collection, not 2A.

 

[AlexanderA]

Anything that's feasible for a private citizen to own, should be allowed under the 2nd Amendment. I don't think that a distinction ever existed between "arms" and "ordnance." "Ordnance" is included under the term "arms."

In any case, establishing an arbitrary cutoff is not to our advantage. Take the maximalist position and let the courts sort it out.

 

[barnbwt]

I'll ask a counter question, from a different angle: All the weapons listed (except maybe nukes, since we never get to use them anymore) are "offensive" in nature (i.e. for attacking, not lewd ) and intended to inflict harm on others (when used in combat). Does the 2nd amendment apply to defensive capabilities of the citizenry as well?

If sufficiently defended (theoretically; offense still has the upper hand at the moment), one could choose to not pay taxes, commit crimes from within the confines of said fortress, and even secede from the union with impunity. Surely the founders wouldn't think that was the right of the individual, to be unilateraly capable of standing up to the government (or to tower over their fellow man)? I've always viewed the 2nd amendment as a last-ditch means for the citizenry as a whole to mount a credible revolt on a tyranical government, which implies an offensive movement more than a defensive one, at least in my eyes.

TCB

 

[gc70]

Were wealthy land owners at the time allowed their own personal cannon? If so, that would tell us much about the intent behind the authors of the Constitution.

The Constitution refers to the answer to the question. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" which authorize privately-owned ships to conduct naval warfare on the country's behalf. Private ships armed with cannon were prevalent enough at the time of the Revolution to act as 'force multipliers' for national navies.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Rational metric...

Habeed--You said,

A case could be made that since in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, they could not have predicted weapons better than at number 2,

Anyone making a case like that in a second-amendment discussion, must have pointed out to them that in a first-amendment discussion, the constitution-framers could not have envisioned all of the media on which our modern society depends--and the users of which, especially "artists," movie-makers and TV broadcasters, shrilly--but correctly--defend whatever near-pornography they wish (in some cases, no matter how revolting) under the first amendment.

Technology marches on, always has, always will. The mind of man is curious, always exploring. Rights shouldn't get "adjusted" accordingly.

 

[kludge]

I think it would be rational to actually follow our founding document and the supreme law of the land, and stop rationalizing away our rights, or presuming the the founders only meant arms that could be carried by a person, and require a constitutional amendment to ban any weapon.

 

[JustinJ]

There does have to be a limit.

Why?

Because without a limit the only limiting factor would be wealth and any person or corporation with the means would be allowed to buy a black market nuke or build their own. Far less means would be required to build a dirty bomb. Why that needs to be prevented should be obvious.

No, there is no limit. The Amendment has to do with the "RIGHT" to bear and keep "ARMS" not what an arm is, without any definition as to what an arm is.

That is ideological rhetoric far outside the bounds of reality. Individual ownership of a nuke would only infringe on rights, such as to life, than it would ever protect.

I think it would be rational to actually follow our founding document and the supreme law of the land, and stop rationalizing away our rights, or presuming the the founders only meant arms that could be carried by a person, and require a constitutional amendment to ban any weapon.

Are you saying that private ownership of all of the listed items is rational?!

 

[jeepnik]

A rational WHAT? Geeze I think a lawyer just wandered in here:banghead:

 

[General Geoff]

Because without a limit the only limiting factor would be wealth and any person or corporation with the means would be allowed to buy a black market nuke or build their own. Far less means would be required to build a dirty bomb. Why that needs to be prevented should be obvious.

This just in: an impossibly wealthy individual or corporation can already obtain these sorts of weapons. Do you really think laws prevent it? No. Logic and lack of purpose prevent it. There are individuals and corporations which reside in this country with more de facto power than many third world nations. When you get to the point of having enough wealth and influence to develop and build your own nuclear weaponry, laws don't really apply anymore.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What might be a rational metric for determining where the second ammendment ends?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

[FMF Doc]

It starts at the muzzle and it ends at the butstock (or grip as applicable).

 

[DefiantDad]

"Because without a limit the only limiting factor would be wealth and any person or corporation with the means would be allowed to buy a black market nuke or build their own. Far less means would be required to build a dirty bomb. Why that needs to be prevented should be obvious."

For what it's worth, people with sufficient wealth can buy ANYTHING already, even lives. Has been throughout history.

America was set up to have checks and balances against such stuff, with the 2A as an integral part of said checks and balances. Said checks and balances are not really balancing these days, and we all know it.

 

[FMF Doc]

A quick history lesson...

barnbwt
Surely the founders wouldn't think that was the right of the individual, to be unilaterally capable of standing up to the government (or to tower over their fellow man)?


Actually, that is EXACTLY what the founders would have wanted. When the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired, it was over the British attempt to seize "a cannon, powder and ball". The weapons of the day that the average citizen had, WERE MILITARY WEAPONS. Why is it now so unacceptable to have military grade weapons? Jefferson said: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

 

[JustinJ]

This just in: an impossibly wealthy individual or corporation can already obtain these sorts of weapons. Do you really think laws prevent it? No. Logic and lack of purpose prevent it.

So then please explain to me why Bin Laden failed to acquire a nuke. He had the funds and the purpose. Law enforcement efforts prevented it.

There are individuals and corporations which reside in this country with more de facto power than many third world nations. When you get to the point of having enough wealth and influence to develop and build your own nuclear weaponry, laws don't really apply anymore.

As i mentioned already the cost of a dirty bomb is minimal. In fact, the nuclear waste has a negative value and generators of it would happily give it away if they could to avoid the high costs of disposal per federal standards. Yes, those extremely wealthy individuals and corporations do actually have to follow the law or run the risk of getting in big trouble. If you believe the only thing that has prevented the detonation of a dirty bomb is lack of will you are sorely mistaken.

America was set up to have checks and balances against such stuff, with the 2A as an integral part of said checks and balances. Said checks and balances are not really balancing these days, and we all know it.

To allow private possession of any weapon, no matter how powerful and terrible, would unbalance the checks far beyond anything in our history. The biggest threat to liberty is concentration of power and weapons of mass destruction possessed by individuals or groups does just that.

 

[dmazur]

I don't think that anyone should have to justify owning any class of gun, whether it be small, medium or large. (Reference: The latest proposed ban on soft drinks, depending on what size they are... )

There are plenty of existing laws which cover misuse of any modern device. We have punishments for various forms of homicide, whether a gun or a vehicle was employed as the deadly weapon.

IMO, owning guns should not be illegal, regardless of type, quantity or what someone is worried you might do with them. To balance this, misuse of guns should have mandatory, stiff sentencing with no parole.

Anything else blames someone "before the fact". That is, you are punished for a crime you have not committed.

There are also various laws, such as fire codes, which might impose limits on ammunition stockpiles, depending on where you live and available storage facilities. (That is, you might be able to own 2,000,000 rounds of .308, but you might have to have something code-approved to store it in.)

This isn't exactly punishing you for something you have not committed, whereas limits on how many rounds someone could own would be.

In summary, I am not suggesting we be a nation without law regarding guns or ammunition, but rather that the laws address misuse rather than ownership. That leaves the rights of the law-abiding, safe owners intact.

 

[JustinJ]

barnbwt
Surely the founders wouldn't think that was the right of the individual, to be unilateraly capable of standing up to the government (or to tower over their fellow man)?

Actually, that is EXACTLY what the founders would have wanted. When the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired, it was over the British attempt to seize "a cannon, power and ball". The weapons of the day that the average citizen had, WERE MILITARY WEAPONS. Why is it now so unnacceptable to have military grade weapons? Jefferson said: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

The ability of a single individual to control or overpower the government, especially a democratically elected one, with no regard to the wishes of the people is tyranny.

 

[DefiantDad]

"The biggest threat to liberty is concentration of power and weapons of mass destruction possessed by individuals or groups does just that."

It's definitely a tough question but I think it is circular now...

Let's rewrite a bit:

"The biggest threat to liberty is concentration of power and weapons of mass destruction."

Just to be clear, I am not saying I have the magic answer.

 

[JustinJ]

I think a good meter would be that the individuals are allowed to own what ever gov't officials are legally allowed to use in the enforcement of laws against civilians.

 

[zxcvbob]

I'm not sure there is a limit, but I would say anything the Infantry would have or find useful would certainly be protected. That includes a lot of stuff that is currently restricted by NFA'34.