RKBA taken to its logical conclusion
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
I don't consider nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction as arms as contemplated under the constitution.
IMHO, the word "arms", as contemplated under the constitution, means any weapon that a soldier or militia man would arm themselves with on the field of battle. So I would interpret this to include; rifles, shotguns, handguns, bayonets, knives, swords, bludgeons, and even some of the newer less than lethal weapons such as stunguns and tasers.
That is why I have been a big vocal proponent of expanding the GFL to cover other weapons such as knives, bludgeons, and tasers in addition to firearms because I believe the second amendment applies to those "arms" as well.
IMHO, the word "arms", as contemplated under the constitution, means any weapon that a soldier or militia man would arm themselves with on the field of battle. So I would interpret this to include; rifles, shotguns, handguns, bayonets, knives, swords, bludgeons, and even some of the newer less than lethal weapons such as stunguns and tasers.
That is why I have been a big vocal proponent of expanding the GFL to cover other weapons such as knives, bludgeons, and tasers in addition to firearms because I believe the second amendment applies to those "arms" as well.
Well, I sorta agree with the nu-clear weapons (as our own "Dear Leader" calls them) availabity part of the argument.
When the 2nd was written, rifled field pieces were probably the most powerful weapons available and could be purchased by individuals. Up until 1934 (I think) SMGs were available to anybody who could afford one. If a private individual can afford to buy a tactical nuke, maybe it should be OK. In theory anyhow...
I'm not sure I'd be very happy if the guy next door built one in his basement, but I don't think there's anything in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit him from doing so.
As nukes aren't all that easy to purchase or build, arguing in favor of them isn't likely to result in any real harm. I hope......
Interesting question there Ramm. May I inquire as to what prompted you to bring it up? Is she a hottie?
And ICP, I fully agree witcha on dose udder weapons.
If we're to be trusted with firearms, why not brass knuckles or blackjacks or switchblades or tasers or whatever? Why the different treatment of knives and guns? I'd love to carry (legally) a sword cane!
I must confess, I truly do not understand many of Georgia's laws, especially those relating to weapons and liquor.........
.
When the 2nd was written, rifled field pieces were probably the most powerful weapons available and could be purchased by individuals. Up until 1934 (I think) SMGs were available to anybody who could afford one. If a private individual can afford to buy a tactical nuke, maybe it should be OK. In theory anyhow...
I'm not sure I'd be very happy if the guy next door built one in his basement, but I don't think there's anything in the 2nd amendment that would prohibit him from doing so.
As nukes aren't all that easy to purchase or build, arguing in favor of them isn't likely to result in any real harm. I hope......
Interesting question there Ramm. May I inquire as to what prompted you to bring it up? Is she a hottie?
And ICP, I fully agree witcha on dose udder weapons.
If we're to be trusted with firearms, why not brass knuckles or blackjacks or switchblades or tasers or whatever? Why the different treatment of knives and guns? I'd love to carry (legally) a sword cane!
I must confess, I truly do not understand many of Georgia's laws, especially those relating to weapons and liquor.........
.
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
IIRC, Bat Masterson carried one as a backup weapon. I see them all the time for sale at knife shows and the occassional gun show. I might give one a look in the future.Macktee said:
Also I would love to legally carry a small katana or tonto.
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
Careful. There are plenty of lotto drawings every week and every now & again its some nut case living in a trailer out in the woods with his guns his dogs & his beer that wins. The kind that saysMacktee said:
"Yeah, I'm a gonna buy me one o dem sat-e-light dishes and a new collar fer old Duke, aaaand a tack-t-cal nu-kle-ar de-vis. Yep, thats whut I'm a gonna do."
I do not want to be anywhere near this guy after a couple of 6 packs on the 4th of July.... "Watch this. YEEEE HAW!"
I don't think WMD should be something that any joe blow can own even if they can afford them...
I certainly am up for having all the other misc weapons added to the GFL.
Joined
·
68,642 Posts
As they continue to be even today so long as registered prior to 1986.Macktee said:
The difference between a full auto M4 and a nuc-you-lar device is that the former is what is meant by the able bodied men between certain ages showing up when called for duty with their private arms. (See U.S. v. Miller on the meaning of militia for why I chose this particular phrase). I do not think nuc-you-lar weapons are even arguably weapons "in common useat the time" that the State of Georgia or your county would expect you to bring along when the state or county called for armed volunteers.
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Good cause that thing is a pain in the butt to get into the back of the truck!Malum Prohibitum said:
Joined
·
760 Posts
The nuclear weapons angle doesn't concern me at all becasue even if it was legal no one would be able to afford to build one and even if they were able to it wouldn't be economical to use it.
Somehow I think that just like current gun laws if someone is going to use a nuke against us, they aren't going to care about the legality.
Somehow I think that just like current gun laws if someone is going to use a nuke against us, they aren't going to care about the legality.
Joined
·
28,139 Posts
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment used to mean that private citizens (and corporations) could own any weapon the military had, so that they could effectively fight with, or against, the army. People could own not only hand-held firearms but also cannon and rockets. I have no reason to think that they could not also own grenades. Grenades (baseball-sized bombs with a short black-powder fuse that had to be manually lit) had been invented generations before. They were not common standard issue equipment for every soldier, but they were in common use as military weapons.
If we wanted to give full force and effect to the Second Amendment today, we'd have to allow not only full-autos, but other NFA weapons such as destructive devices. Cannon and anti-armor weapons, particularly. How about anti-aircraft weapons? Stinger missiles? Well, how could the people rise up and overthrow a tryrannical government without such arms? How much help would we be in assisting our own armed forces repel invaders if we didn't use such weapons? Consider all the insurgent attacks in Iraq, and even 35 years ago in Vietnam. Did we get convinced to leave those countries (as an occupying army) because guys were shooting at us with AK-47s alone? Or was it the AKs, the mortars, the heavy machineguns, the mines, and the explosives (booby traps or IEDs) that gave us so much trouble? The same thing would apply if some foreign army invaded the USA. Shooting at individual enemy soldiers with a .30 rifle would be helpful, but not as helpful as blowing up their barracks with all of them in it!
Now here's the sticky question: Today in modern America, do we really want to give full force and effect to the Second Amendment? Are we Americans the same hardworking moral and reverent people that we were 230 years ago? And do we face the same level of risks (as opposed to much greater risks) if a nut case or criminal or terrorist were to wrongly use some of those heavy weapons that should be covered under the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment used to mean that private citizens (and corporations) could own any weapon the military had, so that they could effectively fight with, or against, the army. People could own not only hand-held firearms but also cannon and rockets. I have no reason to think that they could not also own grenades. Grenades (baseball-sized bombs with a short black-powder fuse that had to be manually lit) had been invented generations before. They were not common standard issue equipment for every soldier, but they were in common use as military weapons.
If we wanted to give full force and effect to the Second Amendment today, we'd have to allow not only full-autos, but other NFA weapons such as destructive devices. Cannon and anti-armor weapons, particularly. How about anti-aircraft weapons? Stinger missiles? Well, how could the people rise up and overthrow a tryrannical government without such arms? How much help would we be in assisting our own armed forces repel invaders if we didn't use such weapons? Consider all the insurgent attacks in Iraq, and even 35 years ago in Vietnam. Did we get convinced to leave those countries (as an occupying army) because guys were shooting at us with AK-47s alone? Or was it the AKs, the mortars, the heavy machineguns, the mines, and the explosives (booby traps or IEDs) that gave us so much trouble? The same thing would apply if some foreign army invaded the USA. Shooting at individual enemy soldiers with a .30 rifle would be helpful, but not as helpful as blowing up their barracks with all of them in it!
Now here's the sticky question: Today in modern America, do we really want to give full force and effect to the Second Amendment? Are we Americans the same hardworking moral and reverent people that we were 230 years ago? And do we face the same level of risks (as opposed to much greater risks) if a nut case or criminal or terrorist were to wrongly use some of those heavy weapons that should be covered under the Second Amendment?
Joined
·
28,139 Posts
VIPER
VIPER, I gau-ron-tee you that if nuclear weapons were legal in the USA or could be legally imported here, some Islamic terrorist group, well-funded by Arab governments and oil-rich princes in that part of the world, would find a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of similar religious and political persuasion to buy one (probably offering a quasi-legitimate reason, if the NRAA (National Radioactive Arms Association) even permitted the government to inquire about the reason why he wanted it) and then he would detonate it in a major American city. Without hesitation. The price tag of the weapon would be no obstacle, be it a hundred thousand dollars or fifty million dollars. Similarly, the threat of our government capturing the offender and convicting him at trial and sentencing him, even to death, would be no deterrant at all. The bomber would probably be sitting on the weapon when it went off, looking forward to meeting the 72 virgins "on the other side."
VIPER, I gau-ron-tee you that if nuclear weapons were legal in the USA or could be legally imported here, some Islamic terrorist group, well-funded by Arab governments and oil-rich princes in that part of the world, would find a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of similar religious and political persuasion to buy one (probably offering a quasi-legitimate reason, if the NRAA (National Radioactive Arms Association) even permitted the government to inquire about the reason why he wanted it) and then he would detonate it in a major American city. Without hesitation. The price tag of the weapon would be no obstacle, be it a hundred thousand dollars or fifty million dollars. Similarly, the threat of our government capturing the offender and convicting him at trial and sentencing him, even to death, would be no deterrant at all. The bomber would probably be sitting on the weapon when it went off, looking forward to meeting the 72 virgins "on the other side."
Personally, I really don't want to see the Second carried out to the most extreme interpretation of allowing tactical nukes, but sorta believe that is the only conclusion we can form based on the founders wanting us to have the same arms as the government.
Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen. Also, fortunately, there are very damn few people are capable of building one in the basement. It takes a lot more than fuel oil and fertilizer...
Unfortunately, there are countries who are capable of building them. While we were invading Iraq, for reasons we may never truly learn, we were ignoring another crazy guy; the one who runs North Korea.
Fortunately, eventhough he's working on it, the Dear Leader doesn't have the ability to deliver nukes to US soil.
Unfortunately, Dear Leader (or some other country with has nukes) may just up and sell one to people who believe that 72 virgins crap.
Then, unless the FBI gets lucky, one of our major cities will turn into a hole in the ground that glows at night. We'll retaliate, but that won't do much for the people who were living there.
I hate to say it, but I believe, it's gonna happen. These people are dedicated and smart and money is no problem for them and someday they're gonna have nukes. Pakistan does and the Taliban almost control Pakistan..... It doesn't look good.
Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen. Also, fortunately, there are very damn few people are capable of building one in the basement. It takes a lot more than fuel oil and fertilizer...
Unfortunately, there are countries who are capable of building them. While we were invading Iraq, for reasons we may never truly learn, we were ignoring another crazy guy; the one who runs North Korea.
Fortunately, eventhough he's working on it, the Dear Leader doesn't have the ability to deliver nukes to US soil.
Unfortunately, Dear Leader (or some other country with has nukes) may just up and sell one to people who believe that 72 virgins crap.
Then, unless the FBI gets lucky, one of our major cities will turn into a hole in the ground that glows at night. We'll retaliate, but that won't do much for the people who were living there.
I hate to say it, but I believe, it's gonna happen. These people are dedicated and smart and money is no problem for them and someday they're gonna have nukes. Pakistan does and the Taliban almost control Pakistan..... It doesn't look good.
Joined
·
28,139 Posts
WRONG, wrong, wrong
Some laws can be effective, in that they actually stop criminals from committing crimes, rather than just provide for punishing them after the crime is done. Most laws against the possession or carrying of weapons are of the latter type-- criminals can choose to disobey them anytime they want. But when it comes to high-order explosives, and Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons, these things are simply not available to most criminals in the USA, even if the criminal is eager to break the law and really wants to acquire them.
The regulations on nuclear weapons and their components are so numerous and well-enforced, that it is virtually impossible to get a nuke in the USA. One would have to be smuggled across our border, but even then this would be more difficult than smuggling most other kinds of contraband.
Hand grenades? Again, they are not as available to criminals and terrorists as guns are. There may be a few, stolen from the military or smuggled back by veterans, in circulation on the black market, but most criminals simply could not buy one if they wanted one. You'd have to have a pretty good network of connected people to get one--or be lucky.
A pipe bomb, made at home, is a fine substitute for a commercially-made hand grenade? No, sorry, it's not. Pipe bombs made with flammible solids (smokeless powder, match heads, etc.) or low-order explosives (black powder) are way less dangerous than a real grenade with a high-order explosive filler (detonation speed of 20,000 feet per second) and a shell casing that is designed to fragment effectively.
It's like comparing a zip gun that shoots a single .410 shotgun shell out of smoothbore section of plumbing pipe to a Scattergun Technologies Rem 870 with a folding stock, side saddle ammo carrier, tactical flashlight, and loaded with 7 rounds of 00 buckshot. They may both go "boom" and throw projectiles forward, but they're not even in the same ballpark as far as performance goes.
Some laws can be effective, in that they actually stop criminals from committing crimes, rather than just provide for punishing them after the crime is done. Most laws against the possession or carrying of weapons are of the latter type-- criminals can choose to disobey them anytime they want. But when it comes to high-order explosives, and Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons, these things are simply not available to most criminals in the USA, even if the criminal is eager to break the law and really wants to acquire them.
The regulations on nuclear weapons and their components are so numerous and well-enforced, that it is virtually impossible to get a nuke in the USA. One would have to be smuggled across our border, but even then this would be more difficult than smuggling most other kinds of contraband.
Hand grenades? Again, they are not as available to criminals and terrorists as guns are. There may be a few, stolen from the military or smuggled back by veterans, in circulation on the black market, but most criminals simply could not buy one if they wanted one. You'd have to have a pretty good network of connected people to get one--or be lucky.
A pipe bomb, made at home, is a fine substitute for a commercially-made hand grenade? No, sorry, it's not. Pipe bombs made with flammible solids (smokeless powder, match heads, etc.) or low-order explosives (black powder) are way less dangerous than a real grenade with a high-order explosive filler (detonation speed of 20,000 feet per second) and a shell casing that is designed to fragment effectively.
It's like comparing a zip gun that shoots a single .410 shotgun shell out of smoothbore section of plumbing pipe to a Scattergun Technologies Rem 870 with a folding stock, side saddle ammo carrier, tactical flashlight, and loaded with 7 rounds of 00 buckshot. They may both go "boom" and throw projectiles forward, but they're not even in the same ballpark as far as performance goes.
Joined
·
68,642 Posts
Re: Second Amendment
If you have a more specific statement than Tench Coxe's newspaper editorial, would you please share it?
One more thing, all of the early cases discussing the issue are always discussing firearms and knives, not cannons and privateers.
I am open to being corrected, of course. I do not pretend to have made a thorough survey, much less a careful study.
While I agree that private citizens did own such weapons, I am not sure it is accurate to state that this is what the Second Amendment intended. Indeed, I can find no discussion by any Founder or early constitutional commentator that supports your claim (other than general newspaper statements like "every other terrible instrument of the soldier," which does not specifically make such a claim, but it could certainly be argued). In addition, I have read all of the early Militia Acts, and the only weapons the early republic ever expected people to show up possessing were muskets, rifles, and horseman's pistols.gunsmoker said:
If you have a more specific statement than Tench Coxe's newspaper editorial, would you please share it?
One more thing, all of the early cases discussing the issue are always discussing firearms and knives, not cannons and privateers.
I am open to being corrected, of course. I do not pretend to have made a thorough survey, much less a careful study.
Joined
·
68,642 Posts
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!