How far does it go?

[Rusty Young Man]

I've only just stumbled on this thread, and thought I'd offer my $.02. I apologize for the long post (you may just skip to the linked article if you so choose).

The argument that only weapons which can be wielded by the individual are the "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment would not stand up to scrutiny in the context of the Militia of the time (which is what the founders saw, agreed with, and wanted for the future). That is to say, that the militia/citizens then DID have access to "military-grade" implements of war and private ownership was limited only to what the individual could afford, which included implements that a single individual could not possibly wield even in that time (ships, cannon).

Cannons then, tanks today. Cannons on warships then, main battery and turrets on warships now. Even if we were to entertain the notion of a multibillionaire somehow wanting to own his/her own nuclear warhead, wouldn't his/her misuse or threats be dealt with conclusively and swiftly by his/her well-armed fellow citizens?

The concept of the Militia (being the People), and of having --- not "allowing" or permitting, but simply "not prohibiting" --- the People be armed with all sorts of war materiel is based on the understanding that whereas a government or standing military may become tyrannical and attempt to dominate the People by force, a well-armed People could not be easily subjugated, nor would the People turn the threat of force on themselves (citizens would come together against enemies threatening the "security of a free state").


Here is a very thoughtful and thought-provoking piece regarding the matter at hand (even if the author only argues for "small arms of military utility" and "weapons of the individual soldier"):

http://bearingarms.com/yes-professo...ve-wanted-us-to-have-rpgs-and-assault-rifles/

Any contextual study of the Second Amendment and the men who authored it may only come to one rational conclusion: the Founding Fathers of these United States meant for citizens to be armed with small arms of military utility, without technological limitations.

These men knew war.

They saw and understood technological advances would take place, having personally witnessed huge leaps in firepower from the musket (3-4 shots/minute), to the Ferguson Rifle (10-12 shots/minute), to the Giradoni air rifle (22 “suppressed” shots/minute), just over the course of the American Revolution.

The knew hand grenades and daggers, swords and pivot guns, and desired for each of us to be armed with “every terrible implement of war.”

Today, that would clearly mean selective fire assault rifles and machine guns, and would quite probably mean include RPGs as well as weapons of the individual solider.

 

[77zach]

I have a problem with un-aimed weapons with large blast radii because they are very difficult to use without collateral damage. I don't think people should be able to have very powerful bombs, neither do I think the government should have them. If it's too dangerous for me, it's too dangerous for the state.

 

[since9]

If it's too dangerous for me, it's too dangerous for the state.

Are you saying you'd support a ban on U.S. military possession of bombs, thereby pulling their teeth, thereby opening the doors wide open to any country who didn't fall victim to such rhetoric?

 

[Bikenut]

Seems to me this discussion is the same one that anti gunners like to have about controlling firearms... the only difference being who is talking about which weapons should be controlled. Even the difference in power of the weapons sounds like a familiar argument since anti gunners like to talk about "assault rifles" that are supposed to be more powerful and scarier than just rifles.

And it seems to me that folks are focusing on controlling the weapons (same perspective as the anti gunner) instead of controlling those who would use those weapons in ways that harm innocents.

Please consider.... if the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to provide for the people to have the means to fight an out of control government how do the people do that without having the same weapons that an out of control government would use against them?

We must be careful lest we ourselves fall for the notion that controlling the weapon itself is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" because a government that controls what weapons are allowed is mainly interested in insuring that the government is the only one with the weapons that are not allowed.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The whole purpose of the bill of rights is to protect PEOPLE from governments, not allowing governments or persons to commit genocide. Sorry but that argument of having nukes because of the second is moronic.

 

[Bikenut]

The whole purpose of the bill of rights is to protect PEOPLE from governments, not allowing governments or persons to commit genocide. Sorry but that argument of having nukes because of the second is moronic.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right of people to keep and bear arms while restricting the government from controlling the keeping and bearing of arms.

Now... as to what "arms" the people have a right to keep and bear? Wouldn't the government setting limits, any limits what so ever, as to what "arms" are not allowed fall under the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction of the government controlling the people's keeping and bearing of arms?

Please note I'm not talking about any arms that an individual may have the opinion are "unreasonable", "inappropriate", or "unacceptable", for the people to keep and bear because...

When the keeping and bearing of arms is subject to opinion then...
"We the people" become the subjects of whoever has the power to enforce their opinion.

.....I'm asking if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right of people to keep and bear arms while restricting the government from controlling the keeping and bearing of arms.

Now... as to what "arms" the people have a right to keep and bear? Wouldn't the government setting limits, any limits what so ever, as to what "arms" are not allowed fall under the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction of the government controlling the people's keeping and bearing of arms?

Please note I'm not talking about any arms that an individual may have the opinion are "unreasonable", "inappropriate", or "unacceptable", for the people to keep and bear because...

When the keeping and bearing of arms is subject to opinion then...
"We the people" become the subjects of whoever has the power to enforce their opinion.

.....I'm asking if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

You are perverting the BOR, the second is clear what it's intent is, and it is not genocide, if anything it is the prevention of it. When we are talking nukes or chemical agents that will KILL AND MAIM the people that the BOR protects, it is insane, and very ignorant to believe that was the second's intent.

It violates the rules of morality, sanity, common sense, and the rules of this site.

 

[utbagpiper]

Please consider.... if the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to provide for the people to have the means to fight an out of control government how do the people do that without having the same weapons that an out of control government would use against them?

Two lines of thought here.

1-Perhaps the real reason for the 2nd amendment has less to do with fighting the government, and more to do with depriving the government with need for a standing army, while still preserving the security of a free state from foreign invasion and domestic insurrection. Of course, depriving the central government of a large, professional, standing army thus reduces the risks that government poses to the population.

Notice that the constitution prevents funding for the army for periods longer than 2 years. Every election for the House of Reps is a chance for the People's voice to significantly reduce funding to the standing army. The Navy, however, does not have this limitation. It is a bit harder to use navies to oppress you own people than it is to use armies to that end.

2-Even if The People need to use their RKBA to fight of their own government gone tyrannical, how do we do so with nukes, chemical, or biological weapons without killing or injuring ourselves or other fellow, innocent civilians? Washington DC has some 600,000 residents, most of whom are not combatants and not in any position to control or aid wartime decisions. Notably, DC has a higher proportion of its land mass owned by private persons (natural or corporate) than does my home State of Utah. Even if the immediate blast damage from a small tactical nuke is limited to a legit military target, the radioactive fallout will spread well beyond that. I trust we needn't even discuss the non-targeted and degree of uncontrollability of biological and chemical weapons.

WalkingWolf is correct on this one. There is simply no way that such weapons can be used to fend off a tyrannical government without doing at least as much damage to ourselves and the rights of our fellow citizens as the weapons might do to the government or its forces.

Any constitutional provision can be twisted or misapplied in multiple ways. Suggesting that the 2nd amendment covers WMDs or anything else wholly unsuited to defending the community, State, or nation is no less offensive to the true intent of the RsKBA than are efforts to claim that it doesn't protect an individual right to own and carry firearms of military utility.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

I look at it like this: rights do not overlap. A right ends where another's right begins.

So, as to possessing nukes: is it possible to use a nuke without violating others' rights? I'm gonna go ahead and say, "no"; even if you set one off on some atoll somewhere, fallout infringes on numerous rights possessed by others around the globe.

If there can never be a right to use a nuke, I don't see how there can be a right to possess a functional nuke, as the latter necessarily (practically, anyway) implies the former.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right of people to keep and bear arms while restricting the government from controlling the keeping and bearing of arms.

Now... as to what "arms" the people have a right to keep and bear? Wouldn't the government setting limits, any limits what so ever, as to what "arms" are not allowed fall under the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction of the government controlling the people's keeping and bearing of arms?

Please note I'm not talking about any arms that an individual may have the opinion are "unreasonable", "inappropriate", or "unacceptable", for the people to keep and bear because...

When the keeping and bearing of arms is subject to opinion then...
"We the people" become the subjects of whoever has the power to enforce their opinion.

.....I'm asking if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

You are perverting the BOR, the second is clear what it's intent is, and it is not genocide, if anything it is the prevention of it. When we are talking nukes or chemical agents that will KILL AND MAIM the people that the BOR protects, it is insane, and very ignorant to believe that was the second's intent.

It violates the rules of morality, sanity, common sense, and the rules of this site.

You just gave me your opinion about nukes and chemical agents.... and anyone who disagrees with your opinion. I didn't ask for your opinion(s)... I asked if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

If you have facts to show that it does not please cite and/or provide links to them.

Oh... and I'll let Grapeshot be the judge of whether my post violates any rules of this site....

 

[Bikenut]

I look at it like this: rights do not overlap. A right ends where another's right begins.

So, as to possessing nukes: is it possible to use a nuke without violating others' rights? I'm gonna go ahead and say, "no"; even if you set one off on some atoll somewhere, fallout infringes on numerous rights possessed by others around the globe.

If there can never be a right to use a nuke, I don't see how there can be a right to possess a functional nuke, as the latter necessarily (practically, anyway) implies the former.

Isn't it an assumption that just because a person possesses a nuke he will use it? Isn't that the emotional assumption that fuels the arguments the anti's use about firearms?

 

[WalkingWolf]

You just gave me your opinion about nukes and chemical agents. I didn't ask for your opinion... I asked if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

If you have facts to show that it does not please cite and/or provide links to them.

Oh... and I'll let Grapeshot be the judge of whether my post violates any rules of this site....

Did you even bother to read the OP?

 

[Bikenut]

Did you even bother to read the OP?

Got cites and/or links that say the government imposing limits on which "arms" are allowed doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment?

You know... that "where is the line" the OP referred to?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Got cites and/or links that say the government imposing limits on which "arms" are allowed doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment?

You know... that "where is the line" the OP referred to?

Got cites or links that the second amendment includes nuclear warheads?:lol::uhoh:

 

[rickyII]

If you were to buy a cannon and carry it home in your pick-up bed or trailer it home, would you be in violation of open carry bans? Just askin'.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you were to buy a cannon and carry it home in your pick-up bed or trailer it home, would you be in violation of open carry bans? Just askin'.

That would probably depend on the state. If you are pulling a cannon in a trailer or it is in the pickup bed, is it on or about your person?

Open carry refers to carry, just as conceal carry is about carry. Those arms which can be carried. While carrying is covered by the "bear arms" not all bearing arms would be carrying. If one legally owned a armed fighter plane it would be impossible to carry. But the public flying of that plane would certainly be bearing arms.

 

[marshaul]

Isn't it an assumption that just because a person possesses a nuke he will use it? Isn't that the emotional assumption that fuels the arguments the anti's use about firearms?

No, you're entirely missing the point. It's impossible to use a nuke without violating rights. This simply does not apply to small arms. Apples and oranges. You can't *ever* have a right to use a nuke, so it does not follow that there must be a concomitant right to own one. On the other hand, you *can* have a right to use a firearm (under numerous circumstances), so it must follow that there is a right to possess one.

I'm one of those who fall into the camp which believes that, beyond some threshold, recklessness itself can constitute tort. You don't have a *right* to drive in any manner whatsoever so long as you don't cause an accident, because certain manners of driving will essentially force any rational person to not share the road with you. It must follow from a "right" to drive in any manner whatsoever that there is also necessarily a "right" to force rational people off the road. Therefore, we can conclude there is no "right" to drive in any manner whatsoever.

The mere possession of a functional nuke represents a threat of sufficient magnitude, and reckless disregard enough, to fall into this category.

From a practical matter, if someone has the right to possess something, they have the ability to use that something. How can there be a right to possess something which can never be used, under any circumstances? If you can't *ever* use it, a decommissioned nuke is functionally equivalent, and you certainly have a right to possess that.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut

Got cites and/or links that say the government imposing limits on which "arms" are allowed doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment?

You know... that "where is the line" the OP referred to?

Got cites or links that the second amendment includes nuclear warheads?:lol::uhoh:

I never said it did. I asked if the government putting limits on what "arms" are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

It appears as though you have said it doesn't ....

Originally posted by WalkingWolf

Originally Posted by Bikenut

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right of people to keep and bear arms while restricting the government from controlling the keeping and bearing of arms.

Now... as to what "arms" the people have a right to keep and bear? Wouldn't the government setting limits, any limits what so ever, as to what "arms" are not allowed fall under the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction of the government controlling the people's keeping and bearing of arms?

Please note I'm not talking about any arms that an individual may have the opinion are "unreasonable", "inappropriate", or "unacceptable", for the people to keep and bear because...

When the keeping and bearing of arms is subject to opinion then...
"We the people" become the subjects of whoever has the power to enforce their opinion.

.....I'm asking if the government setting any limits as to what arms are allowed violates the 2nd Amendment.

You are perverting the BOR, the second is clear what it's intent is, and it is not genocide, if anything it is the prevention of it. When we are talking nukes or chemical agents that will KILL AND MAIM the people that the BOR protects, it is insane, and very ignorant to believe that was the second's intent.

It violates the rules of morality, sanity, common sense, and the rules of this site.

Bold added by me....

... soooo... got cites and/or links to back up your statement above? Or is that just your opinion?

 

[Bikenut]

No, you're entirely missing the point. It's impossible to use a nuke without violating rights. This simply does not apply to small arms. Apples and oranges. You can't *ever* have a right to use a nuke, so it does not follow that there must be a concomitant right to own one. On the other hand, you *can* have a right to use a firearm (under numerous circumstances), so it must follow that there is a right to possess one.

I'm one of those who fall into the camp which believes that, beyond some threshold, recklessness itself can constitute tort. You don't have a *right* to drive in any manner whatsoever so long as you don't cause an accident, because certain manners of driving will essentially force any rational person to not share the road with you. It must follow from a "right" to drive in any manner whatsoever that there is also necessarily a "right" to force rational people off the road. Therefore, we can conclude there is no "right" to drive in any manner whatsoever.

The mere possession of a functional nuke represents a threat of sufficient magnitude, and reckless disregard enough, to fall into this category.

From a practical matter, if someone has the right to possess something, they have the ability to use that something. How can there be a right to possess something which can never be used, under any circumstances? If you can't *ever* use it, a decommissioned nuke is functionally equivalent, and you certainly have a right to possess that.

Apples and oranges indeed since there isn't an enumerated right to drive yet there is an enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

And using small arms to end the life of an individual person, even in self defense, could be considered a violation of that person's right to life.

And it is the anti gunners that conflate possession with use... as if one equals the other. Just because I own a brand new Marlin rifle I bought 8 years ago on sale doesn't automatically mean I will fire it... and it certainly doesn't mean it is guaranteed I would fire it in anger. As a matter of fact that rifle has sat in my safe for those 8 years unused. But there are folks who believe that just owning it guarantees it will not only be fired but will be fired in anger.

We can have our opinion as to what "arms" have so much potential for harm that they are unwise for ordinary people to have.... but then... the anti gunners have the opinion that small arms have entirely too much potential for harm that it is unwise for ordinary people to have them.

But our opinions do not answer whether the government limiting which/what "arms" the people are "allowed" to have violates the 2nd Amendment. Should the government enforce our opinions on where that line should be (and that opinion differs from the rabid anti gunner to the fervent supporter of the 2nd Amendment) that defines the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[utbagpiper]

If you were to buy a cannon and carry it home in your pick-up bed or trailer it home, would you be in violation of open carry bans? Just askin'.

But if you throw a tarp over it, is it in violation of concealed carry bans?

I wonder if my permit covers crew-served weapons.

Charles