Gun rights and nuclear weapons?

The Donkey said:

I own lots of firearms. For home defense: Taurus Mod. 44 chambered with three silverpoints, then 2 .410 shotgun shells with buckshot.

In case of apolcalypse, I have a vintage M-1 carbine with a high cap. magazine and a S & W Pump 12 ga.

I do not need 10 model 44s, 10 M-1s, and 10 pump 12 gauges.

I do not need a 155 mm Howitzer.

I do not need a tactical nuke.

Click to expand...

Show me a "need clause" in the Second Amendment.

If you're feeling feisty, tell me who gets to determine what you or I need for personal defense and/or defense of the country.

AbNo said:

Show me a "need clause" in the Second Amendment.

If you're feeling feisty, tell me who gets to determine what you or I need for personal defense and/or defense of the country.

Click to expand...

You mean after all of this time, Abs, you never noticed the "need clause" in the Second Amendment before?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . . ."

Dude, make that appointment with the Opthamologist right away.



So the Constitution is telling us that we NEED a well-regulated militia for defense of the country. The world is a threatening place, requiring free states to arm themselves with a "well regulated" fighting force.

So far, there is nothing about whether the force "need" be equipped with muskets, but that is certainly implied by the part of the Amendment you and I tend to focus on more ie "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

But this is a broad constitutional injunction: it is not intended to tell us how many muskets to buy -- or to require the soldiers themselves to provide --for a detachment of militia.

That is a military logistics question: you need enough for the detachment. Perhaps the number of necessary muskets is less than the total number of members of the militia -- because some of these militia members will be assigned to support functions, but probably more than the total number of infantry fighters in the detatchment, because you have to plan on a certain amount of loss and breakage of weaponry.

You also need to think about the size of your militia: what is the number of fighters you need to accomplish the military missions of the militia? In planning for this, you need to take into account the more likely scenarios where the militia might be engaged, but also less likely ones, because some of these less likely could have a serious impact on "the security of a free state." You need to think about the fact that it is a dynamic situation, and that your possible opponents may gain information about how many muskets you are buying, and ships you are building. How will they react to that? Are THEY going to be motivated to buy more and better muskets and ships because you -- their possible opponent -- is stocking up? What do you need to do to anticipate that? You need to think about all these things, but also deftly employ Occum's Razor because you do not need to take into account scenarios so bizarre or unlikely as to be absurd, and it is easy to get kind of twisted when you start thinking like this.



So the founders would have thought about the British, and what they might do, and some of the "savages" who are also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. They may have thought about the possibility of internal unrest, such as the Whiskey Rebellion. How many muskets will the "Committees of Safety" need for these contingencies? We had better have enough, because otherwise the "security of a free state" might be jeopardized: but at the same time, not too much, because the United States is already having great trouble raising the capital it requires to pay and equip its militia for existing needs.

If you were to go -- say to John Adams -- and tell him that you thought that the United States should -- in this time of scarse resources -- double its musket purchases to prepare for the contingency of invasions by the Mole People from the Planet Xenon 6, I do not think that you would have gotten a real good response from Mr. Adams. Not so much.

Planning the number of nuclear weapons you may need for the possibility of a nuclear war is in many ways similar to this: you need to think of contingencies, scenarios, and possible targets. You actually may decide that you need more weapons than the number of likely targets you might hit in a war, because these weapons are also subject to loss and breakage. But you do not need too many, because in that case, the "extras" are wasted on things like "making the rubble bounce." You also need to think about your infrastructure: how many of these awful things can you actually support in an adequate state of readiness to address the threats you face. You need to think of resources: these things are very expensive to build, operate, maintain, and properly secure. You need to think of "arms race stability" What are your likely opponents going to think if you start building these things like there is no tomorrow? Are they going to want to build them too? Are they going to start speculating that maybe there really is no tomorrow? What effect is that unfortunate development likely to have on you?

I really do not think that the Second Amendment provides adequate answers to these questions. At best, it is a philosophical statement suggesting that you need enough nuclear weapons to provide for "the security of a free state." Most modern states regard zero as enough for themselves. I am not sure that either the United States or Israel will ever be in that enviable position. But I DO think that both of these states can get by with less -- and considerably less if the right things happen in diplomacy and on the ground.

very nice,,,

i have more guns than i can shoot!
none are nuke.
in a siege on my house, i would be dead before i ran out of ammo!

If I lived in Mexico, I would want my country to have nuclear weapons, just like I want to have firearms in my home for me and my family knowing others out there are armed with them as well. I also think that the leaders of Iran would be traitorous to their own people to give up on their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. The Iranians deserve a means of self defense as much as anyone else in this world. In regards to firearms, I also believe that any lucid adult who has shown no propensity to commit violent crime should be allowed to own and possess firearms, including convicted drug dealers, forgers, embezzelers and other felons who were convicted of crimes that involved no violence.

In my own perfect world, if the U.S. were the only country to have nuclear weapons, I would rather it stay that way just like I would rather my own family and group be the only ones in our society to own and possess firearms. Of course, neither of those things are going to happen and I don't fault any entity for wanting to arm themselves as much as possible for their own defense if they wish.

The Donkey said:

You mean after all of this time, Abs, you never noticed the "need clause" in the Second Amendment before?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . . ."

Dude, make that appointment with the Opthamologist right away.

Click to expand...

Well, I walked right into that one.

I should have known I can't simply rely on the intelligence of some posters, and that leaving an out, as it were, will allow one of the usual suspects to derail the point I was trying to make.

I'm not in the mood to deal with this this morning, as I've seen enough of this chicanery from other people today, and I'll not perpetuate it.

AbNo said:

Well, I walked right into that one.

I should have known I can't simply rely on the intelligence of some posters, and that leaving an out, as it were, will allow one of the usual suspects to derail the point I was trying to make.

I'm not in the mood to deal with this this morning, as I've seen enough of this chicanery from other people today, and I'll not perpetuate it.

Click to expand...

Remember that others read what you write and don't necessarily respond. When you post, always keep that in mind. You are not just trying to answer the poster to whom you are responding; you are trying to counter what he writes in the minds of others.

So, if you post reasonably, and he does not, rational lurkers will get you and shake their heads at the derailer.

You made your point--clearly and successfully. Your future plans in your last sentence are wise.

since9 said:

The vast majority of us do not believe that everyone should have guns, with the two obvious exceptions being convicted felons and the mentally incompetant.



Bingo.



Small numbers of nukes are an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. Handguns can be used for either, but in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, the way most laws are written, when one follows those laws, it's a defensive weapon.

Large numbers of nukes can be a deterrent, but only a few countries, those of the NPT, have enough weapons for deterrence to be considered as a factor.



According to this source, it's:

NPT:
US
Russia
UK
France
China

Non-NPT:
India
Pakistan
N. Korea

Undeclared:
Israel

NPT: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Thus, there are nine countries possessing nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

It is widely thought that South Africa also has, and most assuredly had, the capability to produce nukes. They cooperated with Israel very closely in development of the capability before the country was taken over by the "indigenous personnel."

Gunslinger said:

It is widely thought that South Africa also has, and most assuredly had, the capability to produce nukes. They cooperated with Israel very closely in development of the capability before the country was taken over by the "indigenous personnel."

Click to expand...

Could be. I dunno. Never heard anything one way or another. Probably one less thing I have to worry about.

If anything, I think they're more aligned with our national heritage than California, having evolved along similar lines, even though they hold less political sway.

I'm keenly attuned to what's happening there in their nation.

Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately and do not map to small arms in the sense of the defense of the individual from those who would infringe that individual's rights. There is no way to drop a nuclear weapon on Kim Jong Il's head, and have that only kill Kim Jong Il.

When you possess one for deterrence, you are basically implying that if someone tries to slaughter thousands of civilians by dropping one here, you'll slaughter thousands of civilians in that other country.

From here, the argument generally goes that by not staging a revolution and overthrowing their tyrannical regimes, citizens are responsible for what happens. Which is pretty much what Al Qaeda said about Americans in the WTC, re: our continuous funding of the corrupt, faux-theocratic, and privileged Saudi royalty - a bunch of degenerate autocrats by any rational standard. *We* as Americans should stop funding abusive regimes in the Middle East, they say, and they hold us responsible since this is, we say a government "of, by, and for" the people.

I argue that the very possession of a nuclear weapon is an act of aggression: it signifies a willingness to slaughter indiscriminately, and indeed, WMDs are indiscriminate.

All of this is encapsulated by the reality that nuclear weapons do exist, and that you can make a realpolitik (the game of Statism) argument for deterrence (which is realistically all that matters, or has ever mattered in the argument), but I still think this brings us into an immoral area:

In what instance is the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands morally legitimate, even in retaliation? If you think like a collectivist, you can hold the masses of an aggressor country responsible for the actions of its government (how would you like to be held personally responsible for everything the US government does?) or casually write them off as collateral damage. But it wouldn't satisfy me.

Firearms, on the other hand, can be pointed at, and used against aggressive individuals.

If indeed nuclear retaliation can be justified, can you also justify dropping troops in the Middle East somewhere and randomly shooting 2752 people in retaliation for the attack on the WTC?

As an individualist, I cannot countenance this, nor the many entangling alliances which ensure that my tax dollars go to supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Year after year people insist we fund degenerates who happen to be pro-US for practical reasons, and I'm tired of it. Tired of endless war.

And I really don't see any connection whatsoever between the RKBA, which is always tied to the rights of individuals to their own lives - and therefore to defend them against aggressors.

Nukes are completely separate issues - the proliferation of which is a sad fact of reality, owing to man's insistence on having a State, one he imagines he can control, or "limit" or keep "small," yet fails miserably at, century after century.

I have no easy answers. But people who are casual about nuking our enemies and therefore murdering indiscriminately are not friends of mine -- they are the worst kind of collectivists, urging that violence be visited down upon foreign populations (and violating their right to life, which is the same as ours) for the actions of their governments - governments which, like ours, have spiraled dangerously out of control, are alienated from the will of the citizenry, and do not represent (or even in most cases pretend to represent) the rights of individuals.

My opinion, nor anyone else's here, isn't worth a warm bucket of spit, of course. States will possess nuclear weapons if they so choose, and people's incessant and infantile fealty to them will continue to make it possible.

I must have missed the federal government's enumerated power to determine the type of government, energy programs, or military weaponry that other nations will be permitted to have the last time I read my Constitution.

/sarcasm

ManInBlack said:

I must have missed the federal government's enumerated power to determine the type of government, energy programs, or military weaponry that other nations will be permitted to have the last time I read my Constitution.

/sarcasm

Click to expand...

True, the feds only have the power to defend of US citizens; demolishing foreign powers can be a use of that power.

Daylen said:

True, the feds only have the power to defend of US citizens; demolishing foreign powers can be a use of that power.

Click to expand...

Please tell me when a high-ranking Iranian official threatened to launch a first strike against the United States.

ManInBlack said:

Please tell me when a high-ranking Iranian official threatened to launch a first strike against the United States.

Click to expand...

He didn't say one had.

*sigh* Another strawman. One day all this straw will ignite and OCDO will burn down.

eye95 said:

He didn't say one had.

*sigh* Another strawman. One day all this straw will ignite and OCDO will burn down.

Click to expand...

He implied that launching a preemptive attack against "rogue states" like Iran would be constitutional and justified if it was in defense of US citizens. I would agree, but only in the event that that nation makes an open threat to attack us first.

ManInBlack said:

He implied that launching a preemptive attack against "rogue states" like Iran would be constitutional and justified if it was in defense of US citizens. I would agree, but only in the event that that nation makes an open threat to attack us first.

Click to expand...

You did not say "makes an open threat." You said "launches a first strike," implying that the person to whom you replied had been talking about the rogue nation launching a first strike or that that was the only requirement to defend our citizens.

I have to be blunt: Your posts are deceptive. Strawmen. Shameful.

Take another shot. I made the point and am moving on.

eye95 said:

You did not say "makes an open threat." You said "launches a first strike," implying that the person to whom you replied had been talking about the rogue nation launching a first strike or that that was the only requirement to defend our citizens.

I have to be blunt: Your posts are deceptive. Strawmen. Shameful.

Take another shot. I made the point and am moving on.

Click to expand...

I think your reading comprehension could use some work, but feel free to spew baseless insults all you want on an internet forum.

Gunslinger said:

It is widely thought that South Africa also has, and most assuredly had, the capability to produce nukes. They cooperated with Israel very closely in development of the capability before the country was taken over by the "indigenous personnel."

Click to expand...

In fact, South Africa did have nukes. I have always thought that Israel probably did have a hand in helping South Africa get them. But I have never seen much about the details of this transaction, and I would be VERY interested in reading about it, if you have a link.

South Africa tested its nukes, in the ocean -- in the athmosphere -- and this was picked up by US "national technical means." That is well known.

Then, South Africa liberated itself from white rule: I guess that is what you mean by "taken over by the 'indigenous personnel'."



(The "indigenous personnel" comment is actually an interesting choice of phrase. Why did you use it?)



Anyway, after the liberation, South Africa deliberately and openly gave up its nukes. That was a truly great act. No other state has done that (although other nuclear capable states have decided not to go that way).

South Africa's decison was an act of real leadership. If nuclear proliferation slows, the South African example -- and others like it -- will be among the reasons why.

Nukes are not defensive weapons. They do, however, have a deterrent value. Please note that defense and deterrence are two different things, although some things, such as a locked door, can provide both defense as well as deterrence. A sign that says, Beware of Dog provides deterrence, but it's the dog, not the sign, which provides a defense. Naturally, if the dog has a deep, loud bark, that would be a deterrent as well.

I agree there's no 2A requirement to justify keeping and bearing arms. I thoroughly enjoying read the comment below about how well the 2A spells out the necessity (need) for American's to keep and bear arms. Nice!

There is, however, a 1776 parallel to the restrictions on types of firearms owned, and that parallel can be found in the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves. Put simply, both naval and field cannon (artillary) had been around for centuries, yet every one of the FF's mention of the people's right to keep and bear arms mentions muskets and pistols, but makes no mention of cannon. Thus, it's not a leap that the Founders' use of the word "arms" was focused on the personal firearms they routinely mentioned, but not heavier artilliary they did not mention.

Still, I'd like a fully-loaded P-51D Mustang!

since9 said:

Nukes are not defensive weapons. They do, however, have a deterrent value. Please note that defense and deterrence are two different things, although some things, such as a locked door, can provide both defense as well as deterrence. A sign that says, Beware of Dog provides deterrence, but it's the dog, not the sign, which provides a defense. Naturally, if the dog has a deep, loud bark, that would be a deterrent as well.

I agree there's no 2A requirement to justify keeping and bearing arms. I thoroughly enjoying read the comment below about how well the 2A spells out the necessity (need) for American's to keep and bear arms. Nice!

There is, however, a 1776 parallel to the restrictions on types of firearms owned, and that parallel can be found in the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves. Put simply, both naval and field cannon (artillary) had been around for centuries, yet every one of the FF's mention of the people's right to keep and bear arms mentions muskets and pistols, but makes no mention of cannon. Thus, it's not a leap that the Founders' use of the word "arms" was focused on the personal firearms they routinely mentioned, but not heavier artilliary they did not mention.

Still, I'd like a fully-loaded P-51D Mustang!

Click to expand...

Nevada carrier said:

If they have nukes, they have the power to tell us no when we demand they do our bidding. To make it simple, it's a way for the bully to keep the bullied from becoming strong enough to fight back.

We sell this lie to the people on the pretense that we can not trust these nations with the power that nuclear weapons will give them. but the above is the true reason.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Senator Reid.

I'm just glad to know that a greater majority of people are rational enough to recognize that failing states, and states controlled by sociopathic oligharchs who regularly promise to wipe the US and Israel off the map, should be prevented from having nuclear weapons.

It takes a very special individual to mindlessly regurgitate something Mikhail Moore would say, implying that our country is morally inferior to the 3rd world hell holes we're "subjugating".