The Nuke Bomb Argument and the 2nd Amendment

[rushmc 18]

The nuke bomb argument was raised in another thread

So, does the 2nd Amendment protect nuke bomb ownership?

The answer is, of course not.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It does not speak of bombs, tanks, surface to air missiles, hardly.

It says arms.
The other part of the argument it at times directed to the point that the founders had no idea what the weapons of today might be. I dispute that. And again, it is clear in the amendment they are speaking to arms. Not any arms, but rather, arms you can “bear”.
Guns, knives, clubs all can be carried right?

Well how about a nuke in a suit case, one can carry that?
Again, if one takes the time to read the Federalist papers and understand what the founders were trying to address, it becomes clear they are talking about protecting one’s self (and loved ones) but also one’s own property and community.
A detonated nuke of that type would not protect one’s life or property. No, it would destroy it. So that type of weapon is not protected under the 2nd Amendment


The arms the founders were talking about are clearly those that can be carried. Carried at all times and everywhere

Weapons that were to send a projectile at another person

And in the end, this is all 2nd Amendment supporters and the NRA are trying to protect

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

And yes

I do support private ownership of fully automatic weapons (even though it will not happen)

When the founder wrote the Constitution they were shooting single fire muskets and the like. In a few short years revolvers and rifles like the Henery repeating rifle were developed. The country did not try and change the law to say they were just speaking to single shot muskets.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I have to disagree. I think arms are arms. The Founding Fathers did not mention planes, tanks, etc. because they did not exist.

And automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Nor are silencers or sawed off shotguns. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay a tax to have them. More trouble than buying a pistol, but less than getting a passport. I have two silencers. I found the ATF quite helpful and the process quite smooth.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

When the founder wrote the Constitution they were shooting single fire muskets and the like. In a few short years revolvers and rifles like the Henery repeating rifle were developed. The country did not try and change the law to say they were just speaking to single shot muskets.

The Henry repeating rifle and the first cartridge revolvers were made approximately 70 years later. The authors of the constitution were already dead.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

When the founder wrote the Constitution they were shooting single fire muskets and the like. In a few short years revolvers and rifles like the Henery repeating rifle were developed. The country did not try and change the law to say they were just speaking to single shot muskets.

The Henry repeating rifle and the first cartridge revolvers were made approximately 70 years later. The authors of the constitution were already dead.

Yes
But my point was there were developements in guns constantly since the founding of this country

There seemed to be no problem until lately

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I have to disagree. I think arms are arms. The Founding Fathers did not mention planes, tanks, etc. because they did not exist.

And automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Nor are silencers or sawed off shotguns. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay a tax to have them. More trouble than buying a pistol, but less than getting a passport. I have two silencers. I found the ATF quite helpful and the process quite smooth.

I agree

However the point was every person be armed

Quotes show that they were thinking of going armed even when going for a walk

I dont think you can walk a tank

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

However the point was every person be armed

There is no reading that says that every person should be armed, based on the Constitution alone.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The definition of Militia has changed over the years, but this says that the right shall not be infringed. Just as the right to freedom of religion means that one does not have to have a religion, the right to bear arms does not mean that one has to have weapons.

Of course, the overall discourse is what does the first part mean -- there are plenty of opinons on that one, aren't there

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

However the point was every person be armed

There is no reading that says that every person should be armed, based on the Constitution alone.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The definition of Militia has changed over the years, but this says that the right shall not be infringed. Just as the right to freedom of religion means that one does not have to have a religion, the right to bear arms does not mean that one has to have weapons.

Of course, the overall discourse is what does the first part mean -- there are plenty of opinons on that one, aren't there

Wendy P.

I think you are wrong on both point Wendy
I just linked the Federalist papers
Start at 26.

As for the militia comment
The meaning has never changed
But those wishing for gun control have tried to bastardize its meaning over the years

The SC answered some of that in the last few years

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wayneflorida 0]

2nd dose not cover nukes.
Damn, I guess I'll have to turn mine in.

[kallend 1,625]

How about RPGs? Machine guns? They are certainly carryable and militias all over the world use them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

2nd dose not cover nukes.
Damn, I guess I'll have to turn mine in.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

How about RPGs? Machine guns? They are certainly carryable and militias all over the world use them.

The argument I heard and tend to agree with is RPG's? No, Not meant as a one on one personal deterent. It is not a arm but a bomb
And if you mean fully auto weapons? Yes. And I could own one now if I wanted to pay all the fees
But I dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Quote

I have to disagree. I think arms are arms. The Founding Fathers did not mention planes, tanks, etc. because they did not exist.

And automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Nor are silencers or sawed off shotguns. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay a tax to have them. More trouble than buying a pistol, but less than getting a passport. I have two silencers. I found the ATF quite helpful and the process quite smooth.

You are right about "arms are arms."

The Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought because the British were coming to confiscate the town militia's large arms (cannon).

But I disagree that Class 3 arms are easier to get than a passport.
Although legal in Wisconsin, my police chief and sheriff refuse to sign the form 4. So there is no way at all for me to get full auto unless I move.
And Short Barrel or Silencers require me to go the "Trust route" which costs several hundred dollars to set up the trust. Lots of paperwork and a lawyer.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I have to disagree. I think arms are arms. The Founding Fathers did not mention planes, tanks, etc. because they did not exist.

And automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Nor are silencers or sawed off shotguns. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay a tax to have them. More trouble than buying a pistol, but less than getting a passport. I have two silencers. I found the ATF quite helpful and the process quite smooth.

You are right about "arms are arms."

The Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought because the British were coming to confiscate the town militia's large arms (cannon).

But I disagree that Class 3 arms are easier to get than a passport.
Although legal in Wisconsin, my police chief and sheriff refuse to sign the form 4. So there is no way at all for me to get full auto unless I move.
And Short Barrel or Silencers require me to go the "Trust route" which costs several hundred dollars to set up the trust. Lots of paperwork and a lawyer.

Suppresors with get you a fellony in Iowa

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[muff528 3]

Quote

......
Of course, the overall discourse is what does the first part mean -- there are plenty of opinons on that one, aren't there

Wendy P.

IMO - In the 18th century "well regulated" seems to have referred to the "operational readiness" (my words ...I've seen other, more explanatory, definitions) of the "militia". It didn't (IMO) refer to "regulation" or control by the government which would have "infringed" on the specifically enumerated right to bear arms.

But, we, as a society, have to decide through our representatives how to allow the government to determine which citizens can be denied that right and how the gov't is to make that determination. (whether based on mental health evaluation, felonies, and other circumstances where rights might be denied.) We (the citizenry) retain the right to disallow and remove that privilege from "the government" if we see it being misused. Of course, that would never happen. Once government gets "a power", whether by regulation or by legislation or by rule, it never gives it up. Besides, it's easier to just let government decide for us and we live with the consequences of their proclamations or executive fiat.

[billvon 2,400]

>It does not speak of bombs, tanks, surface to air missiles, hardly. It says arms.

arm:
Noun

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
. . .

Verb.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
. . .

>A detonated nuke of that type would not protect one’s life or property.

Many people here have argued that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan protected the lives of a great many American soldiers.

>The arms the founders were talking about are clearly those that can be carried.

Ah, so you think the arms they were talking about are the arms we should be allowed to carry! At that point, they included smoothbore, muzzle loading, single shot firearms. You might make an argument that rifling was around at that point (although not in personal weapons) so they might have had them in mind. But they certainly were not considering automatic or semiautomatic weapons, since that technology did not yet exist for personal arms.

So by that argument the Second Amendment refers to muzzle loading single shot weapons. Those are the arms that the government may not prevent ownership of. All other weapons - up to the state or federal government.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>It does not speak of bombs, tanks, surface to air missiles, hardly. It says arms.

arm:
Noun

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
. . .

Verb.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
. . .

>A detonated nuke of that type would not protect one’s life or property.

Many people here have argued that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan protected the lives of a great many American soldiers.

>The arms the founders were talking about are clearly those that can be carried.

Ah, so you think the arms they were talking about are the arms we should be allowed to carry! At that point, they included smoothbore, muzzle loading, single shot firearms. You might make an argument that rifling was around at that point (although not in personal weapons) so they might have had them in mind. But they certainly were not considering automatic or semiautomatic weapons, since that technology did not yet exist for personal arms.

So by that argument the Second Amendment refers to muzzle loading single shot weapons. Those are the arms that the government may not prevent ownership of. All other weapons - up to the state or federal government.

Cant carry a nuke bomb

No, it is NOT the governments decision
If that is to be changed then do it the way intended

Amend the constitution

Small arms are small arms

It is not the govs job to define what small arms means

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Cant carry a nuke bomb

Right. And that has what to do with this? The second amendment says nothing about "the right to bear arms you can carry."

>Small arms are small arms

Where in the Constitution does it say "small arms?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Cant carry a nuke bomb

Right. And that has what to do with this? The second amendment says nothing about "the right to bear arms you can carry."

>Small arms are small arms

Where in the Constitution does it say "small arms?"

The right to bear arms shall not be

Think they were talking cannons?

I can't bear a cannon
Can you?

If you would read the Federalist papers I linked to you will see that the debated included being armed when going for a walk

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

If you would read the Federalist papers I linked to you will see that the debated included being armed when going for a walk

These days you can go for a walk with more firepower than one of the cannons of that era had. Do you think that would have altered their thinking at all?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

If you would read the Federalist papers I linked to you will see that the debated included being armed when going for a walk

These days you can go for a walk with more firepower than one of the cannons of that era had. Do you think that would have altered their thinking at all?

No I do not

The reasons they give for an armed populace is very clear

one only need read the Federalist Papers

In the end, it is somewhat relative to the era

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep government power in check by a citizenry that can fight back, then cannons, tanks, and indeed nuclear bombs should be legal. You can't fight back against a government with small arms, at least not effectively.

On the other hand, if the purpose was to allow individual citizens to defend themselves, then limiting the right to small arms seems correct.

You can't argue that the 2nd is designed to keep the government in check and simultaneously support restricting the permitted arms to pistols and rifles. Those arguments are not consistent.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep government power in check by a citizenry that can fight back, then cannons, tanks, and indeed nuclear bombs should be legal. You can't fight back against a government with small arms, at least not effectively.

On the other hand, if the purpose was to allow individual citizens to defend themselves, then limiting the right to small arms seems correct.

You can't argue that the 2nd is designed to keep the government in check and simultaneously support restricting the permitted arms to pistols and rifles. Those arguments are not consistent.

Certinly I can and they are consistant

Just the numbers of an armed population would make it nearly impossible for a gov to take over that way

The japan military knew this too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>The right to bear arms shall not be
>Think they were talking cannons?

Probably not. But if you make that assumption, it is even safer to assume they were not talking about semiautomatic weapons - since, as you said, they did not exist at the time, and therefore they could not have been talking about them.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The right to bear arms shall not be
>Think they were talking cannons?

Probably not. But if you make that assumption, it is even safer to assume they were not talking about semiautomatic weapons - since, as you said, they did not exist at the time, and therefore they could not have been talking about them.

No, the assumption I am making is they were talking about what would be considered a personal weapon of the era

AR15's fit that thought

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln