How far does it go?

[since9]

As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question

The framers wrote many letters back and forth to one another. Many of those letters are preserved in the Library of Congress. Over the summer of 1982, I read through dozens of them.

Those letters carried a common theme with respect to "arms."

First of all, the framers distinguished "firearms" as a subcategory of "arms."

Second, the framers frequently referred to hatchets, bow and arrow, swords, knives, and even pikes and clubs as "arms." The term "firearms," on the other hand, was reserved for matchlock muskets and other guns and canon requiring the use of gunpowder to propel a projectile.

Thus, when these same gentleman framed, debated, and passed our Second Amendment, they had absolutely zero intention that the meaning of the term "arms" was in any manner to be restricted to guns in general, much less the matchlock musket. They fully intended it to cover ALL arms that may be used by citizens to defend self, property, and country.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The framers wrote many letters back and forth to one another. Many of those letters are preserved in the Library of Congress. Over the summer of 1982, I read through dozens of them.

Those letters carried a common theme with respect to "arms."

First of all, the framers distinguished "firearms" as a subcategory of "arms."

Second, the framers frequently referred to hatchets, bow and arrow, swords, knives, and even pikes and clubs as "arms." The term "firearms," on the other hand, was reserved for matchlock muskets and other guns and canon requiring the use of gunpowder to propel a projectile.

Thus, when these same gentleman framed, debated, and passed our Second Amendment, they had absolutely zero intention that the meaning of the term "arms" was in any manner to be restricted to guns in general, much less the matchlock musket. They fully intended it to cover ALL arms that may be used by citizens to defend self, property, and country.

Hmm I think +1 on this one. This is a good perspective to see from. I submit that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear all of, but not necessarily only, any arm that may be necessary to the security of a free state.

 

[utbagpiper]

So far the only ones to kill innocents with nukes has been a state.

And that action brought about a much more rapid end to WWII with Japan than would have likely been possible otherwise; and quite arguably saved a lot more lives on both sides than it took. I'm reminded that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more persons than did the A-bomb.

I take no assurance and comfort from mutual wholesale destruction.

And yet what other strategy might we propose? Once one side has nukes--and that genie is out of the bottle--you rely either on the benevolence of that side, or you must provide some means of deterrence. MAD worked with us and the Soviets during the cold war. It seems to be keeping India and Pakistan from blowing each other to bits.

Massive trade may be more important to us and China than any overt threats of MAD.

I have no idea how we persuade radical Islamic Jihadists not to use nukes or other WMDs if they can get their hands on them.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

State approved history.

Killing innocents for political ends is never justified.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

And that action brought about a much more rapid end to WWII with Japan than would have likely been possible otherwise; and quite arguably saved a lot more lives on both sides than it took. I'm reminded that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more persons than did the A-bomb.
...
Charles

... Are you trying to justify that?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

... Are you trying to justify that?

Japan was already seeking terms to end a war, the US people didn't want and the US government helped maneuver us into. Targeting innocents is immoral instead of combatants is immoral. If its one bomb that kills hundreds of thousands or thousands of bombs that does the same.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It was never about ending the war, though that gave them an excuse. It was about human trials on a new pill, a deadly pill. Had Japan surrender before the bomb, Truman would have found another excuse to use one on people. God knows he used it on our own in limited ways to test it, but it just was not enough.

 

[utbagpiper]

State approved history.

Killing innocents for political ends is never justified.

One of the outcomes of the War Between the States is that total war includes eliminating the ability of the enemy state to wage war. That includes elimination of war supporting factories as well as breaking the will of the people to continue waging war.

... Are you trying to justify that?

History is what it is. I'm glad that Operation Downfall was not needed:

"Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties."

Japan was already seeking terms to end a war, the US people didn't want and the US government helped maneuver us into. Targeting innocents is immoral instead of combatants is immoral. If its one bomb that kills hundreds of thousands or thousands of bombs that does the same.

Japan was seeking a negotiated surrender that would have left their Imperial culture unaltered. The unconditional surrender allowed for the rebuilding of both the physical infrastructure, as well as the fundamental change in culture that was needed to avoid another yet another war.

Killing million of "innocents" pressed into service as last line defenses against a traditional invasion is no less immoral than killing 200,000 in bombings to force a surrender without said invasion.

War is immoral. We should not start them. When forced upon us, we should win them decisively enough that enemies can become allies.

It was never about ending the war, though that gave them an excuse. It was about human trials on a new pill, a deadly pill. Had Japan surrender before the bomb, Truman would have found another excuse to use one on people. God knows he used it on our own in limited ways to test it, but it just was not enough.

Anti-American revisionist history. The bombs had been well tested in New Mexico. If it was truly about human trials, a single bomb would have done that. Japan refused to surrender following Hiroshima. Nagasaki convinced them it was futile to continue. Even with 200,000 dead from the two bombs, that is easily an order of magnitude fewer Japanese causalities than predicted by both the US military and the Japanese government had the US military invaded with Operation Downfall.


Amazing how many are so hostile to the government of the US they will ignore or minimize the horrific crimes of the Soviets that we fought to minimize during the cold war, but turn around and condemn the US and Truman for ending the war with Japan in a manner that resulted in far fewer deaths and less damage to the nation as a whole than if a full scale invasion had taken place.


Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

The bombs were tested on American cities? That is a new one to me, got cites for that?

All history is written in the eye of the victor. The wanted to test those *** ****** bombs on cities, they did, it would not have mattered if Japan had surrendered. They tested them on animals but needed human testing, casualties. Are you aware of any testing that was intended to maim and kill? Even though it did over time.

Any US president that would do this again should be tried for war crimes and punished, it was, and is intolerable.

 

[utbagpiper]

The bombs were tested on American cities? That is a new one to me, got cites for that?

You know very well that I made no such allegation. As such, your question is a complete straw man. You know better.

But since you're in the mood to bring up citations, can you provide any citations to your repeated claims that the bombs were dropped primarily from a desire to test the bombs on cities and humans?

I did a quick google and didn't find anything. I did find a bit about "Unit 731" that "was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan."

I have long been aware of some of the experiments that the US Military carried out on its own personnel, including this video. I've also seen, but can't locate right now, a video of three service members who stood directly under a high altitude nuclear explosion as the entire thing was filmed as part of an effort to persuade the public that using nukes to shoot down enemy nuclear bombers was not a terrible idea. And I just so happened to grow up in St. George, Washington County, Utah, which is the downwind location for the above ground nuclear testing in Nevada. For an area with no coal mines and very little tobacco use, we have a most excellent cancer treatment center. Turns out drinking milk from cows grazed on contaminated pastures was the real kicker for most victims in my area.

So I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the topic.

I'll be pleased to see any credible citations you can provide that Truman had any significant motivation to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki other than forcing the Japanese to surrender unconditionally.

Any US president that would do this again should be tried for war crimes and punished, it was, and is intolerable.

It was fundamentally no different than the carpet bombing of certain German cities or the firebombing of Tokyo. Under conditions of declared warfare, a nation's ability and willingness to wage war are credible wartime targets. This was true starting in 1863 and remained true through at least Vietnam. Recent advances in targeting weapons has permitted the US to dramatically increase its ability to target specific buildings or even individuals. That we have not waged a war against a nation-state in quite some time has also forced changes in strategy for both practical and moral reasons.

But given the choice between killing 200,000 of the enemy's people and ending their will to fight, or killing 2 million or more of their people, along with suffering a million causalities among your own forces, any US president who didn't drop the bomb and end the war would be guilty of not only war crimes but also treason.

Now, this all said, we're not about to change each others minds. This particular side-topic has nothing to do with our RKBA or OC. And you've already stooped to some rather offensive, if thinly veiled, profanity. So I'm going to leave the topic alone. If you post citations, I may learn something new. When you don't post any citations to back up your claims of the ugliest of intentions on the part of Truman, I might also learn something.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Did it or did it not test the bombs on populated cities?

The US tested a bomb at Bikini Atoll using animals, there was only ONE way to test it on humans for human casualties. They took it as far as they could testing with animals. Whether you want to admit it or not it was a test on people.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It was never about ending the war, though that gave them an excuse. It was about human trials on a new pill, a deadly pill. Had Japan surrender before the bomb, Truman would have found another excuse to use one on people. God knows he used it on our own in limited ways to test it, but it just was not enough.

+1

Its interesting the claim some will make to rationalize mass murder against innocents.

Also interesting is that US gave Japan almost all the conditions they wanted prior to dropping the bomb.

Only sociopathic maniacs would insist on unconditional surrender.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Did it or did it not test the bombs on populated cities?

The US tested a bomb at Bikini Atoll using animals, there was only ONE way to test it on humans for human casualties. They took it as far as they could testing with animals. Whether you want to admit it or not it was a test on people.

The idiots even nuked our own soil. Nevada, New Mexico, etc.

 

[utbagpiper]

Also interesting is that US gave Japan almost all the conditions they wanted prior to dropping the bomb.

Only sociopathic maniacs would insist on unconditional surrender.

And yet after the bombings, the Japanese agreed to unconditional surrender as put forth in the official Instrument of Surrender. To wit:

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

Via the instrument of surrender the Japanese Government promises to issue orders to all military commands to surrender their forces to the allies, "unconditionally". The Japanese government commands its civil, military and naval forces to "obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives" from McArthur.

I welcome any credible citations to the contrary. But note that the link I provided includes a facsimile of the actual instrument of surrender.

The surrender was unconditional. And that permitted the US to make some fundamental transformations in the Japanese government and culture that, to date, have ended a long history of imperialism and gross abuse of the human rights of those that the Japanese looked down upon, while also bringing about significant prosperity to Japan and her people.

And as I've done with WalkingWolf on this side topic, having provided some very basic and easily verified historical facts, I will leave you to whatever disagreement with, and venom toward, our government you like. I will echo Truman in saying that while the A-bomb is a huge responsibility, I thank God it was the USA and not any of the Axis powers that developed it first.

Protracted disagreements on these subjects does nothing to advance RKBA nor OC. So please do not think me rude if I don't respond to your future posts on this side topic.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Man attempts to rob another man with a knife. Potential victim makes it know he has a gun and demands unconditional surrender. Other man says hey sorry I'm done robbing you, potential victim shoots and kills man.

 

[utbagpiper]

Man attempts to rob another man with a knife. Potential victim makes it know he has a gun and demands unconditional surrender. Other man says hey sorry I'm done robbing you, potential victim shoots and kills man.

Complete non-sequitor as unconditional surrender applies to nations at war, not to individuals on either end of a robbery.

But if someone really is incapable of seeing the difference between individuals and nations we would expect him to get a lot else really wrong as well.

 

[Grapeshot]

Round and round we go - no end in sight.

Reminds me of a pinwheel



Pretty to see, lots of motion, no progess - each pinned to their stick.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Round and round we go - no end in sight.

Reminds me of a pinwheel



Pretty to see, lots of motion, no progess - each pinned to their stick.

If a walkingwolf and a utbagpiper agree on something, just talk it out longer until they disagree.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Man attempts to rob another man with a knife. Potential victim makes it know he has a gun and demands unconditional surrender. Other man says hey sorry I'm done robbing you, potential victim shoots and kills man.

Just imagine the outcry if another country dropped a nuke on us~~~and then tell us they saved lives by taking over a hundred thousand lives in an instant. The same excuses being used for the atom bombs being dropped are being used by today's terrorists. The end justifies the means...

 

[Logan 5]

As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question

Truly? No limit. It is a matter of responsibility. If you want nerve gas, I suppose if you know of where you can use it safely, maybe. And pray you die when something bad happens, because of all the liability and criminal charges you could be facing if something goes bad.

Likewise, if you have the money and want a fully functional tank, have at it. If I have the money, I'd love to have a few hundred pounds of C-4. And a few thousand blasting caps & fuse. That ****'s sweet!

Did it or did it not test the bombs on populated cities?

The US tested a bomb at Bikini Atoll using animals, there was only ONE way to test it on humans for human casualties. They took it as far as they could testing with animals. Whether you want to admit it or not it was a test on people.

You forgot about Nevada, I see. Google Downwinders Syndrome. Then buy a book called "The Day We Bombed Utah", and learn of the many Americans that fell victim to the testing programs.