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

[Sam1911]

Oh, I don't know...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nlcmmt8X0&feature=related

But this would still support my thought experiment about the inneficacy of ONE man to force his will on society and/or force political change. Even armored up he was only able to damage a few things and kill himself.

That would not be the case with nukes, of course.

 

[JustinJ]

Inconceivable!
[Inigo]You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo]

Who and what word?

Ownership of arms and the ability to effectively stand against its government, should that government become oppressive, pretty much defines a free people.

Then we are not free and no country has been for a long time. There is no way the citizens of this country, or any other industrialized one for that matter, have a snow ball's chance in hell of defeating its military with privately owned weapons.

Only a free people can be said to have a "representative government."

Is it your opinion that the countries you have cited are "free peoples?"

Freedom is a matter of degrees. Like i said none have a perfect democracy but we sure as hell don't either. But i've never lived in those countries so i'm not in a position to judge how free they are. Are you?

The essential question was about whether old tyrannical orders peacefully yielded to democratic orders without force, or the threat of it.

Russia's old order (which we could argue was a democracy, mind you) fell apart, primarily an economic meltdown, but there was in fact a reactionary element that called TANKS into play to preserve the old order. The reactionaries wanted to fight, but the guys in the tanks switched sides and swivelled their turrets.

Those opposing the transition made a brief resistance with the use of force but the point is that in the end the citizens did not have or use weapons to get it.

All countries have had conflict prior to democracy and one can of course speculate about how those conflicts got the transition on track to it. My point is that for some nations an armed populace was not the source of change.

 

[DefiantDad]

Just came across this:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Moncure1.html

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AIN'T ABOUT HUNTING
Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.*

Copyright © 1991 by the Howard University School of Law; Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.

"The Second Amendment ain't about hunting." [1] The current debate concerning whether a particular gun is better suited for a hunting or sporting purpose completely misses the aim of the second amendment. The second amendment recognized a common law and natural law right, taken for granted as inalienable, to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the second amendment was directed at maintaining an armed citizenry for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against the tyranny of our own government. [2]

Colonial Americans possessed guns for a variety of purposes, including hunting, personal self-defense and mutual defense against the Indians, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French. These necessities "put firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." [3] The only people denied this right, "Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians," were those who also enjoyed less than full benefits of citizenship. [4]

The tradition of an armed citizenry has long been recognized in England. [5] As early as 872 A.D., the "Great Fyrd" required both [p.590] nobles and peasants to keep arms that were appropriate to their status. [6] While the "Great Fyrd" was unsuccessful against the Norman invasion, the Assize of Arms of 1181 retained this tradition by, again, requiring the possession of arms. [7] The presence of an armed citizenry is credited, in part, for the failure of a feudal system to exist in England. [8]

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

Do the math on the casualties inflicted by the minnie ball compared with all the nukes ever used.

 

[RX-178]

I've said this a few times before, but the 2nd amendment is in and of itself a rational metric:

'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.'

ARMS, as defined as a device, or instrument designed and/or used to inflict phyiscal harm, or death upon another person.

At the time it was written, and still in modern terminology, anything desgined to damage infrastructure, fortifications, naval vessels, or strategic assets is considered ORDNANCE. The 2nd amendment does not protect a right to keep and bear ordnance.

Nukes are ordnance. Bombs are ordnance. Naval artillery is ordnance. Stinger missiles are ordnance. etc. etc. etc.

Rifles are ARMS. Handguns are ARMS. Swords are ARMS. Crossbows are ARMS. Even a ma-deuce and other heavy machineguns like it are ARMS.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am mostly ok with the arms/odnance distinction. However, there are some grey areas. Say you have a squad weapon based on the AR that fires from the open bolt. Is that a rifle, which would be arms, or a machine gun, which would be ordnance?

"Ordnance" is a subset of "arms." The distinction is both wrong and unacceptable.

 

[RX-178]

I would argue that the idea of American citizens using roadside bombs, long range rocket attacks and other very familiar terror tactics, even if pursuant to the overthrow of a tyrannical government, is AGAINST the spirit of the second amendment.

From the declaration of independence;

'Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.'

This leads me to believe that the distinction between Arms and Ordnance was made deliberately, as the fine line between the resistance of tyranny, and the enabling of anarchy and/or feudalism.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This leads me to believe that the distinction between Arms and Ordnance was made deliberately, as the fine line between the resistance of tyranny, and the enabling of anarchy and/or feudalism.

Who made this distinction? Certainly not by the Founding Fathers!!

In the Revolutionary War, the American side used rifles (which the British considered a violation of the customs of war), mines (including floating mines), muskets loaded with "buck and ball" (which the British also considered a violation of the customs of war) And un-uniformed guerillas (which the British . . . ) You get the picture.

 

[JustinJ]

Do the math on the casualties inflicted by the minnie ball compared with all the nukes ever used.

Minnie ball has been available to be used by millions of people and nukes haven't. Not comparable.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Minnie ball has been available to be used by millions of people and nukes haven't. Not comparable

Just because the math doesn't run your way doesn't mean they aren't comparable.

 

[JustinJ]

The math actually does support my way. Given minnie bills have a higher death total in spite of the fact that a single nuclear blast kills thousands of people at a time it is quite obvious that not allowing private possession of nukes has been the much wiser course.

 

[RX-178]

Who made this distinction? Certainly not by the Founding Fathers!!

Begging your pardon, but I do believe that they did.

Considering the response of the British, seeing themselves as a peacekeeping force, and this taking place nearly two centuries before the likes of the holocaust, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers would have considered that a future government in this country might slaughter their own people. Certainly not to the point where resistance of tyranny would include total warfare, which never happened during the Revolutionary War.

I believe the Founding Fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment not because they envisioned an army of militia defeating a tyrannical Continental Army in battle, and flying the new revolutionary flag over Federal Hall, but because the POTENTIAL of violent resistance is a check and balance against the government.

I also would like to point out, just because I don't believe Ordnance is constitutionally protected, doesn't mean that I believe that it should be banned. I just happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment is COMPLETE, and requires no clarification in regards to a 'rational metric'.

 

[ny32182]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been covered, but if you want to have a philosophical discussion you have to remove the practical limits on an individual acquiring the latter half of the list.

So, someone invents a 100 megaton nuke the size of a baseball, that costs $10. Should it be rotating for sale to anyone in the gun rack at Walmart?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The math actually does support my way. Given minnie bills have a higher death total in spite of the fact that a single nuclear blast kills thousands of people at a time it is quite obvious that not allowing private possession of nukes has been the much wiser course.

So somehow the people killed by the minnie ball are somehow less dead than those killed by the atomic bomb?

This is a typical anti's argument. Immediately jump to "nuclear weapons" and use that to justify prohibiting pocket knives.

 

[Ramone]

I think that *I* would consider some 'back door' restrictions-

fer instance, I think you should be able to own a nuclear device, PROVIDED that you also have the infrastructure in place to deal with it in terms of containment/security/maintenance. Doubly so for Chemical or Biological agents. I think local jurisdictions might also be justified in 'banning' such on Zoning or Public Safety grounds.

 

[qwert65]

To accurately classify the danger level of something you need to look at concentration, 4,000 mi'ne balls can kill say 8,000 ppl(if they line up right, no misses etc), 4,000 units of weaponized plague can kill 10,000 if spread correctly, 1 nuke could kill 100,000
From this WMD are more potent.

 

[DefiantDad]

I'm a bit ambivalent about that (nukes, chemical weapons, etc.).

I can understand why we might want to err on the side of giving MORE liberty to individuals (the same way you'd want to err on the side of the benefit of doubt, for murder cases, so that you'd rather let a few guilty go instead of putting away an innocent man).

And yet, Murphy's Law says a personal nuke / chemical weapons, etc. could just blow up by pure accident.

So I suppose the costs of upkeep would be prohibitive, and that's basically the issue, whether or not one can maintain the upkeep, so as to maintain safety. But the margin for error is zero here.

Actually of course the real answer is, even governments should not have nukes, because governments are not immune to Murphy's Law either. But since governments CAN have nukes (and chemical weapons, etc.), that is probably why it comes into question here in this theoretical discussion about the 2A (which is essentially all about balance of power / ability, and thus covering all the examples of Iron Man suits and perfect communications/encryption, etc.).

 

[gc70]

25. Naval Submarines

It is apparently okay with the US government for ordinary folks to have a retired Soviet cruise missile submarine.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

With enough money , a good attorney, a clean background and a NFA tax stamp you could own almost anything on the original posters list.
At the time our founding fathers wrote our Constitution most private citizens owned better firearms than the military.Up till about 1934 Americans could own any type of weapon they wanted if the could pay for it.
Thru US history soldiers went to warbringing their own better firearms than the army issued ,such as they brought Winchesters when the army still issued trapdoors.
The 2nd amendment is what gives teeth to the Constitution and keeps the government from running more slipshod over us than they are.
Same reason the Japanese didn't attack the CONUS in WW2. They feared Americans behind every rock and tree would be shooting at them.

 

[barnbwt]

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

Do the math on the casualties inflicted by the minnie ball compared with all the nukes ever used.

1. All the casualties by Minnie weren't inflicted by one guy's hurt feelings
2. "All the nukes ever used" is a low number because they aren't widely available ($). Thank God we (or Russia) never thought it a good idea to widely arm "friendly" rebels and regimes with nukes.
3. The lesson of the Civil War (or WBTS) was that we must never shed blood so senselessly again. The number of casualties in the war had far more to do with political decisions than weaponry. France learned this lesson too late in WWI (with 90% of their fighting-age population killed, they never recovered).

So somehow the people killed by the minnie ball are somehow less dead than those killed by the atomic bomb?

This is a typical anti's argument. Immediately jump to "nuclear weapons" and use that to justify prohibiting pocket knives.

4. Nukes were on the OP's list, so they are legitimately debateable on this thread. Also, a vaporized person is definitely more dead than someone hit with a Minnie.
5. I doubt someone with thousands of posts on a gun forum is an anti (gotta stick by my fellow Texans)
6. Were pocket knives even on the list? I forget. We do have a length limit in Texas which I'd like to see lifted, though.

When Pakistan and Syria fall (and they will) we will get to run the experiment on whether profileration=obliteration. The question's been mostly theory up to this point...

TCB

 

[sniperlongshot]

i saw an episode on the outdoor channel over 10 years ago: the guy who owns dillan reloading owns a jet fighter trainer armed with 50 cal mgs shoot down drones over his land, it that a bit much, or is he (a millionair) living the american dream

i don't remember hearing anything about him straffing a movie theater or mall with it, so.....law abiding citizen with an armed jet fighter plane......doesn't bother me a bit that he has one.

 

[sniperlongshot]

as a matter of fact, i always wanted a WW1 dorsey with a lewis gun, if i could afford one, i'd have one,.....so ask yourself:

is it technically legal, or illegal

can i afford it

can i afford to play with it, and do i have the land and resources to ethically use it safely

is it anyone elses buisness that i have one and should i care

if i use it in a crime, or harm a bystander what ever the case, i must pay penalty

if it scares you that i have a WW1 armed fighter, then go buy an anti air craft gun so you can defend yourself if you can afford it, but remember if your bullet/shell crosses your property line, it's a fellony

 

[JustinJ]

So somehow the people killed by the minnie ball are somehow less dead than those killed by the atomic bomb?

What is that supposed to even mean?

This is a typical anti's argument. Immediately jump to "nuclear weapons" and use that to justify prohibiting pocket knives.

That is a typical ad hominem attack by one who can't support their position. Trying to equate my argument to one an anti would make has nothing to do with if it's validity. And for the record the OP introduced Nukes into the discussion. Regardless, a rational person can easily see that there are blatantly clear reasons to regulate nukes that do not exist with pocket knives.

as a matter of fact, i always wanted a WW1 dorsey with a lewis gun, if i could afford one, i'd have one,.....so ask yourself:

is it technically legal, or illegal

can i afford it

can i afford to play with it, and do i have the land and resources to ethically use it safely

is it anyone elses buisness that i have one and should i care

if i use it in a crime, or harm a bystander what ever the case, i must pay penalty

if it scares you that i have a WW1 armed fighter, then go buy an anti air craft gun so you can defend yourself if you can afford it, but remember if your bullet/shell crosses your property line, it's a fellony

Since i'm not the only one in the country i would think it wise to also ask myself what another might do with any such weapon and then weigh the risks against the rewards.

I understand the philosophical view of "we should be allowed to own any weapon" but what i don't get is how others can fail to see how this line of thinking breaks down in the real world.

5. I doubt someone with thousands of posts on a gun forum is an anti (gotta stick by my fellow Texans)

Darn it, he figured me out! All this time its been just killing me to pretend i enjoy having multiple AR's, AK's, pistols, etc!

 

[geekWithA.45]

So, let's refine the question, and look at it a little differently.

It's not about pre-empting an individual's ability to commit death and mayhem. Some people might want it to be, but the long and short of that argument is that there's no way to achieve the goal.

It's about their capacity/magnitude/potency for dealing death and destruction on their own prerogative.

Problem: there are valid (but many would argue unlikely) circumstances where maximized individual death and destruction dealing is just and proper.


So, just how potent ought one individual "allowed" to be?


And if we define that potency as "less than X", who gets to be/have X or greater, and what makes him so special?

 

[DefiantDad]

If you look at the Japan knife incidents, around a dozen people are murdered by just a knife wielding maniac. Just pointing out a factor applicable to all items that can be used criminally (arson is another example).

Whatever rationale must apply universally, not just singling out firearms because they are dramatic (loud and make bright flashes).