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

[sgtredleg]

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.

I believe that is a close statement.
During the time of the American Revolution, as others have stated, the average individual owned and knew how to use a military grade INDIVIDUAL weapon. It should be the same today. Whatever an Individual professional soldier is issued as a fighting weapon, the same should not only be allowed but encouraged, for the law abiding citizen. This would include hand grenades and grenade launchers if so desired. These are not crew served weapons and should be treated as Individual weapons.
To resist tyranny of any form, the citizenry should be able to form a body of armed and trained individuals. At that level, possibly crew served weaponry could be included in the Militia armory. Of course, along with this ultimate defense of liberty is a huge dose of knowledge, wisdom and willpower. All peaceful means should be exhausted at that point, before open warfare is even considered.

 

[General Geoff]

ArfinGreebly's post, if you replace 'space ship' with 'powered armor suit,' pretty much describes the Iron Man movies.

 

[Iramo94]

Specifically about the OP question.

I would personally stop at 20, just because I really really really want something supersonic.

But I don't see a problem with anything on that list in the hands of law abiding citizens. (or non-citizens, for that matter.)

 

[1911 guy]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

in the vernacular of the time of it's writing, "regulated" meant trained and/or organized.

An armed population is necessary to maintain the freedom of the people in this newly formed state (country).

Therefore, the right of the people to keep and use weapons is not to be infringed.

Infringed means encroached upon or tampered with.

In short, no. Rational thinking goes out the window when you try to tamper with what was written in pretty plain language. The Constitution was written by a group of very intelligent men with a powerful command of the English language. They wrote exactly what they meant to say.

 

[mcg-doc]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The proper spelling, as written in the Bill of Rights, has only one comma. There's no comma after the word militia.

 

[1911 guy]

Nope. It's there in the original. Our high school english teachers would not approve of the punctuation usage, but the founders apparently weren't grammar nazis.

UCLA law school web page and my own copy of T.J. Nortons "The Constitution of the United States it's sources and application" page 206 (1963 edition) checked for accuracy.

 

[Creature]

The distinction would be at how "discriminant" the weapon is.

Highly discriminant: knife, sword, club, pistol, shotgun, rifle.
Moderately indiscriminant: fully automatic machine gun, fully automatic machine pistol, small explosive device.
Completely indiscriminate: Nuclear device, large explosive device, fuel-air explosive, biological weapon, chemical weapon, land mine, booby trap.

Sice we have the right to self defense and the right to live unmolested (which however means that I do NOT to have the right to indiscrimnately harm another person in the pursuit of self defense)

Nuclear weapons are not constitutionally protected to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

 

[1911 guy]

Wrong. You would be prevented from using such weapons because it would violate another constitutionally protected rights without just cause. The Second Amendment doess not prohibit it at all.

And where did the argument of "weapon discrimination" come from? Research laboratories have the right to posess highly virulent diseases and viruses for research. They do not have the right to fling an opened test tube into Times Square.

You have a Constitutional right to own anything you can afford. You do NOT have the right to infringe upon another rights by use of that object.

 

[mcg-doc]

Nope. It's there in the original. Our high school english teachers would not approve of the punctuation usage, but the founders apparently weren't grammar nazis.

UCLA law school web page and my own copy of T.J. Nortons "The Constitution of the United States it's sources and application" page 206 (1963 edition) checked for accuracy.

Library of Congress

 

[JustinJ]

And yet, there is also the very legitimate need for LEOs to use said weapons against bona fide CRIMINALS.

I don't have an objection to private ownership of the weapons that could reasonably be needed against criminals by LE.

In principle, why would a personal nuke be "obviously" prohibited?

How about in practical terms? You really can't see why it would be prohibited?

Do you believe that my personal nuke would be for sale to anyone with a big enough pile of cash or that I would acquire/build it only because I intend to use it?

Lots of collectors own firearms that are lodged in safes or display cases and are never used. Similarly, I could own a nuke with no intent to use it. As long as I have the provisions in place to ensure its integrity and security (which would be enormously complex and expensive, to be sure), my nuke would be no more dangerous than my shotguns.

Hopefully you wouldn't shoot up a movie theater or fly a commercial air liner into a tower but that obviously does not mean others would not. The fact that you would not use a nuke if possessed in no way, shape or form means somebody else wouldn't. Do you really believe the Ft. Hood shooter or bombers of the world trade center would not have used one if owned? Or a dirty bomb?

Quote:
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

Riiiight -- a Chicago cop stopped him.

Please give us a cite on how "law enforcement" prevented Bin Laden from getting a nuke.

Apparently you are unaware that international law enforcement agencies exist which tightly regulate the disposal of nuclear weapons and materials in places such as former soviet union countries. You are also apparently unaware that international LE agencies work undercover to prevent sales of said weapons to terrorist groups. Such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Interpol which work with LE of countries regularly.

And while you're at it, explain how "law enforcement" prevented China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea from getting nukes.

That is a completely different subject.


I'm just in awe that people are arguing in favor of private ownership of nuclear weapons. Forget conventional nuclear weapons and think about dirty bombs. No great amount of money is required to build on and the "fallout" from the detonation of one in a large city would be unimaginable. How one thinks making such weapons available to everybody, which means crazy's would get them to, is necessary is absurd.

Barnbwt hit it on the head. Modern weapons of mass destruction would not make the gov't fear the people. It would make the gov't and the people fear the individual.

I hope nobody outside of the gun community is reading this thread because if we tell the general public that the 2nd amendment means we have a right to nukes, bio weapons, etc then nothing else we say will be taken seriously.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I believe that if we simply limit the modernity of weapons available to the populace, we could properly balance the scales between The People, The Government, and The Evil People.

Only if you believe a "proper balance" is with the people completely subservient to the Government and at the mercy of the criminals.

 

[mortablunt]

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.

So out of these, here I give my opinions for different cases. The first is for private individuals (a person) or individual security contractors (mercenary). The second is for private groups (citizens) as well as PMC's (security companies and defense contractors). The third is for NGO's (like the United Nations) and unrecognized states (such as Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Kosovo). The fourth group is for recognized nations.

My general opinion is that up to an individual level, these are okay:

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
14. Mortars and flamethrowers (flamethrowers are higher up because the burns are horrifically inhumane)
15. Up-armored vehicles with mounted weapons
16. Bradleys (APCs)
19. Attack Helicopters

Now for private groups, the folowing is okay

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

The following is okay for NGO's

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


And everythign is permissable for recognized governmetns

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.

 

[JustinJ]

ArfinGreebly, your thought experiment has some major holes in it. For one, there is no need to invent a new hypothetical spaceship. Technologies that offered huge military advantage when first created, such as cars, planes, subs and helicopters, were not made illegal so why would you assume the space ship would? The ordinance it could deliver is already illegal? Rather we agree with the laws or not weapons are prohibited because of their perceived danger.

When governments actually achieve a force monopoly, history tells us that the outcomes -- for the population at large -- are generally heinous.

Are there not countries in existence today with governments that have had a force monopoly over their citizens for a long time for which there has been no heinous outcome? Hell, there has been a force monopoly in the US for a long time as well. My AR will do little to no good against a B1 bomber. Nazi Germany, China, Russia etc of the past were all very complex situations and the causes for their mass murder were very complex and can not simply be explained away by a disarmed populace. The lack of a representative democracy is the primary condition that led to those events.

 

[Warp]

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.

That isn't bad.

I've been contemplating my response/answer to the OP since, well, years ago. I still don't have a good answer that I like and can defend with sound logic and reason.

The cynic in me still sees fault with the above statement, though. The word "legally". The government doesn't have to follow the law, and if it were as stated above the government would simply break the law and once again have the 'force monopoly' over its citizens. This points us back to shall not be infringed

 

[Warp]

ArfinGreebly, your thought experiment has some major holes in it. For one, there is no need to invent a new hypothetical spaceship. Technologies that offered huge military advantage when first created, such as cars, planes, subs and helicopters, were not made illegal so why would you assume the space ship would? The ordinance it could deliver is already illegal? Rather we agree with the laws or not weapons are prohibited because of their perceived danger.

There is no need for his hypothetical spaceship? Well, for starters, there doesn't have to be a need for something. People invent and build and otherwise acquire things that don't have a need ALL THE TIME. Secondly, there are obvious potential benefits and uses for said spaceship.

Also note that in his example the spaceship (singular), is his. HIS. His ship, his technology. And while I don't recall him saying it, I got the impression that he would not voluntarily share that technology with the government for purposes of the hypothetical situation

 

[TurkeyOak]

Get your facts straight Civilians had better arms than the army until the adoption of the M-1.

The Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle was superior to the British Brown Bess musket.

The US Army didn't adopt the lever action Henry or Winchester (with rare occasions) but stayed with single shots.

Custer was out gunned at the Little Bighorn because the locals had lever actions and he had single shot.

The Thompson was marketed to ranchers and farmers. It wasn't until the M1 Garand that the army had a superior arm.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

ArfinGreebly, your thought experiment has some major holes in it. For one, there is no need to invent a new hypothetical spaceship. Technologies that offered huge military advantage when first created, such as cars, planes, subs and helicopters, were not made illegal so why would you assume the space ship would? The ordinance it could deliver is already illegal? Rather we agree with the laws or not weapons are prohibited because of their perceived danger.

Well, my extrapolation is based on the changes that have taken place in the implementation of government over the last hundred years. If the spaceship thing doesn't ring it for you, try the communicator I suggested -- the untrackable, unhackable, unlimited range device immune to any intercept. Do you imagine that dot-gov would not immediately attempt to classify such a thing as "ordnance" (as they did with encryption)?

You may not think dot-gov (and dot-mil) would want exclusive control of something like a Firefly class spaceship, but it is my SWAG that they would.

When governments actually achieve a force monopoly, history tells us that the outcomes -- for the population at large -- are generally heinous.

Are there not countries in existence today with governments that have had a force monopoly over their citizens for a long time for which there has been no heinous outcome? Hell, there has been a force monopoly in the US for a long time as well. My AR will do little to no good against a B1 bomber. Nazi Germany, China, Russia etc of the past were all very complex situations and the causes for their mass murder were very complex and can not simply be explained away by a disarmed populace. The lack of a representative democracy is the primary condition that led to those events.

Governments that have a force monopoly tend to impose conditions on their populations that would not be tolerated here. Mass murder is only an extreme case. China? That's the place to go if you want to raise a large family. Russia? Seriously? Is it your opinion that their current standard of living and their "freedom" to conduct business would be acceptable to you?

I don't agree that the "situations and causes" that led to mass murder were "complex." All you have to do is put a crazy man in power and give him total control of the police and military. And really, if you make it possible for the guy at the top to have such total control, it's only a matter of time before you wind up with a lunatic in that position, and people will spend the next couple of generations wondering "how that happened."

Hell, there has been a force monopoly in the US for a long time as well.

Well, yeah. That's kind of the problem.

What we're discussing is the remedy.

 

[JustinJ]

There is no need for his hypothetical spaceship? Well, for starters, there doesn't have to be a need for something. People invent and build and otherwise acquire things that don't have a need ALL THE TIME. Secondly, there are obvious potential benefits and uses for said spaceship.

I was not saying the space ship should not be allowed because it is not needed. I was saying that there is no need to invent this hypothetical scenario of a new technology with military advantage because such scenarios have actually already occurred at many times in the past.

 

[JustinJ]

Governments that have a force monopoly tend to impose conditions on their populations that would not be tolerated here. Mass murder is only an extreme case. China? That's the place to go if you want to raise a large family. Russia? Seriously? Is it your opinion that their current standard of living and their "freedom" to conduct business would be acceptable to you?

Those countries either still lack or are trying to transition to a representative democracy. It won't happen overnight. And for those two examples there are plenty of other countries with strict gun control that have excellent standards of living and are no more oppressed than us in the States. Some even less so in some regards.

I don't agree that the "situations and causes" that led to mass murder were "complex." All you have to do is put a crazy man in power and give him total control of the police and military. And really, if you make it possible for the guy at the top to have such total control, it's only a matter of time before you wind up with a lunatic in that position, and people will spend the next couple of generations wondering "how that happened."

The conditions that allow such people to take power in the first place are complex. But the cause of mass genocide is totalitarianism and an armed populace is no guarantee against it. Guns go both ways. They can be used by those who wish impose tyranny to take control of a government as well. Russia and China both had civil wars before the communist gained control. A representative government is the only true barrier against such atrocities.

 

[87jeep]

Just want up to #18, Would need a sponsor past that.

In 1770's a cannon was the max any country had, and some regular people had them. Do the math!

 

[JustinJ]

Just want up to #18, Would need a sponsor past that.

In 1770's a cannon was the max any country had, and some regular people had them. Do the math!

Do the math on the casualties a cannon can inflict compared a nuke in time square.

Placing ideology before common sense generally does not end well.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Those countries either still lack or are trying to transition to a representative democracy. It won't happen overnight. And for those two examples there are plenty of other countries with strict gun control that have excellent standards of living and are no more oppressed than us in the States. Some even less so in some regards.



The conditions that allow such people to take power in the first place are complex. But the cause of mass genocide is totalitarianism and an armed populace is no guarantee against it. Guns go both ways. They can be used by those who wish impose tyranny to take control of a government as well. Russia and China both had civil wars before the communist gained control. A representative government is the only true barrier against such atrocities.

I see.

And how is it that one evolves a "representative government" out of these assorted tyrannies?

 

[JustinJ]

And how is it that one evolves a "representative government" out of these assorted tyrannies?

Are you implying that an armed populace is the way to do it in modern times? Many countries have been fortunate enough to have a peaceful transfer to representative democracies but others have not. However, the government of no industrialized nation in modern times will be overthrown with privately owned weapons. The only chance for change through armed conflict today is when enough of the military defects and brings weapons that are actually effective to the rebel side.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Even if you own an antique Civil War cannon which is legal in most places, you still have to responsibly store the black powder so that it does not pose a hazard to your neighbors.

Explosives are like gasoline, poison and pet tigers in that they are inherently dangerous in ways that typical small arms are not. You would expect reasonable restrictions on your neighbor if he wanted to store any large amount of explosives in his house because it would put you directly in harms way. If he owned a modern military rifle, full auto or not, it would not put you in danger like a case of howitzer shells would in a house fire.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Are you implying that an armed populace is the way to do it in modern times? Many countries have been fortunate enough to have a peaceful transfer to representative democracies but others have not. However, the government of no industrialized nation in modern times will be overthrown with privately owned weapons. The only chance for change through armed conflict today is when enough of the military defects and brings weapons that are actually effective to the rebel side.

Do we have any history majors in the room who would like to field this one?