Where is the line drawn?

I assume most here are for unregulated possession of weapons, and while arguing this point with some colleagues it was naturally asked "What about nukes?" To which my response was of course not and when asked why not my response was simple, "because they're indiscriminate in what they kill and unless you're dropping one in the middle of the woods there is absolutely almost no way not to kill innocent by standers." This is in contrast to say a fully automatic assault rifle which I could be much more discriminate with when targeting.

Where do you think the line is drawn between legal and illegal weaponry if at all?

Click to expand...

I was refering more to general ownership, but carry works too. Personally I would feel safe and confident carrying an M4 strapped to my chest because of my military training, though I wouldn't in today's climate just to avoid the cop stops and the :what:

Click to expand...

When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.

Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.

I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test.

Click to expand...

Is it appropriate for the federal government to own nuclear weapons? That is to say, has any federal official in the military chain of command -- from Harry Truman on down -- ever been put on trial for merely having control over nuclear weapons?
No.
Therefore, shall we surmise the federal government and its agents have some proper and duly delegated right, power, or authority to possess such things?
If so, where did it or they get that right, power, or authority?
Fortunately, under our system of government, we know what the answer must be: The government can acquire no right, power or authority except those which are delegated to it by the people.
Can you delegate a right, power or authority which you do not already possess?
No.
Therefore: The American people, both individually and as a group, have the right, power and authority to own nuclear weapons. No other condition can apply, unless you submit that we now live under a form of government where all rights and powers start with the GOVERNMENT MASTERS, who then bestow upon us (their peasants and slaves) only those lesser and included rights which our masters wish US to have.

Click to expand...

When you show me that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

Click to expand...

When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

Click to expand...

When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

Click to expand...

eye95

When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the article - or the Constitution. Your question was answered.

Click to expand...

That reply was not intended for you. I was pointing out to someone else that I was asking you and not him.

Anyway, I don't see anywhere in that article where it says that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannon. Did I miss it?

Click to expand...

eye95 wrote:

That reply was not intended for you. I was pointing out to someone else that I was asking you and not him.

Anyway, I don't see anywhere in that article where it says that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannon. Did I miss it?

Click to expand...

Are you being intentionally dense, or can I assume you didn't really read the article? The issue is not cannons. The issue is that no "government" has the authority to decide what weapons or anything else people may own or carry.

The only "authority" any government has is what is granted it by individuals. You may grant it the privilege of determining what you do and own, but you cannot authorize anyone to exercise that control over me or anyone else. Not you alone, nor 300 million of you.

Click to expand...

Seriously, though... think about it this way, is not the 2nd Amendment written to allow the citizen to protect themselves not only from the criminal but also from the government? Given that the 2nd Amendment also protects the right of the citizen to protect themselves from the government, would it not be reasonable to assume the right to arm oneself to the same level as that government would also not be protected?

Click to expand...

When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent.  At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies.  Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation.  In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket.  Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun.  Semi-automatic capability is reasonable.  Automatic capability is understandably arguable.

Click to expand...