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:I'd love to carry (legally) a sword cane!
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: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......
As they continue to be even today so long as registered prior to 1986.Macktee said: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.
Good cause that thing is a pain in the butt to get into the back of the truck!Malum Prohibitum said: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.
Yeah, but if you wanna catch yaself some fishes and I mean lotsa fishes, let some goood ole boy pop one of them thar things under Lanier. Thar'll be plenty of fishes ripe for da taken.USMC - Retired said:
And with all the radiation you can fish in the dark!Adam5 said:Yeah, but if you wanna catch yaself some fishes and I mean lotsa fishes, let some goood ole boy pop one of them thar things under Lanier. Thar'll be plenty of fishes ripe for da taken.USMC - Retired said:
Caught and cooked at the same time !!!Rammstein said:And with all the radiation you can fish in the dark!Adam5 said:Yeah, but if you wanna catch yaself some fishes and I mean lotsa fishes, let some goood ole boy pop one of them thar things under Lanier. Thar'll be plenty of fishes ripe for da taken.USMC - Retired said:
If he's that crazy the law won't mattergunsmoker said: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."
Well, under an original intent reading of the second amendment "every terrible implement of the soldier" and all the jazz we now step into the "slippery slope" argument that some liberals like to use against us.
"Well if yout think the second amendment gives you the right to own military weaponry then I guess that means you think individuals can own nuclear weapons"
If you say no, then you've validated that there are limits and that there slippery slope is just as good as your own.
If you say yes, then you are dismissed as a wack job.
My answer is yes. (A lot of people already think I'm a wack job, so its cool)
The reasoning is economics. Why in the hell would a private ciitzen go to such great expense to build or buy a nuke. First off, it woudl be so expensive that it would be pretty clear who could buy one and second of all why would a private citizen buy a weapon that he could never really use and if he did he could only use once and never be able to buy one again (again the expense angle). The answer is of course that even if they were legal no private citizen would buy one, and if some private citizen was crazy enough to buy one and had the desire to use it either a) the laws wouldn't matter to him anyway as is the case with most arms control measures or b) it'd be pretty easy to figure out who he was.
The problem comes with smaller destructive devices which can cause mass damage against personnel and material but are relatively cheap to produce. Grenades for example are such an item. However, in my eyes one can already make grenades right now. A thin metal casing enclosing an explosive and a timed fuse, viola, a grenade. All three of which are pretty easy to find. Pipe bombs anybody?
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: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.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm#FN;B42Coxe analyzed technological developments in the manufacture of cannon and muskets: "Cannon are constantly manufactured, when demanded, to a very considerable extent, in the public armories of the nation, and of the States, and on contracts, and for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation." That cannon were marketed to the citizens is an interesting revelation given Coxe's prediction in 1787 that the armed populace would be more powerful than a standing army.