0
rushmc

The Nuke Bomb Argument and the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

Quote

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



Unlikely, unless everyone was armed, and everyone rose up together.

Quote

The japan military knew this too



There was never any realistic chance that the Japanese were going to invade the continental US, and it wasn't because of Grandpa's hunting rifle.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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

AR15's would be considered a personal weapon of their era? Or do you mean they would consider an AR15 of our age similar to the flintlocks of their age?

Let's take an actual weapon of the era - a Hancock-class frigate. It carried 34 guns that could fire up to 12 pound balls. Each gun weighed up to 1200 pounds. It was the "WMD" of its era - a military weapon that had no function for personal defense.

Thus, your argument that "well, they said arms because all armaments were small back then, not like today" isn't valid. They knew very well what their naval forces had, and they didn't explicitly ban them. If you want to get into the whole "what did they REALLY mean?" argument there are two possibilities:

1) They meant to protect private ownership of the most powerful weapons of the age (frigates with 1000 lb guns then, nuclear weapons today)

2) They assumed that there was a commonsense separation between small arms, used for defense and hunting, and the more capable weapons used for mass killing and military purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>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

AR15's would be considered a personal weapon of their era? Or do you mean they would consider an AR15 of our age similar to the flintlocks of their age?

Let's take an actual weapon of the era - a Hancock-class frigate. It carried 34 guns that could fire up to 12 pound balls. Each gun weighed up to 1200 pounds. It was the "WMD" of its era - a military weapon that had no function for personal defense.

Thus, your argument that "well, they said arms because all armaments were small back then, not like today" isn't valid. They knew very well what their naval forces had, and they didn't explicitly ban them. If you want to get into the whole "what did they REALLY mean?" argument there are two possibilities:

1) They meant to protect private ownership of the most powerful weapons of the age (frigates with 1000 lb guns then, nuclear weapons today)

2) They assumed that there was a commonsense separation between small arms, used for defense and hunting, and the more capable weapons used for mass killing and military purposes.



What I mean they would today consider the AR15 a weapon of the day

Just as they did the weapons they had then were considered weapons of the day
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>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

AR15's would be considered a personal weapon of their era? Or do you mean they would consider an AR15 of our age similar to the flintlocks of their age?

Let's take an actual weapon of the era - a Hancock-class frigate. It carried 34 guns that could fire up to 12 pound balls. Each gun weighed up to 1200 pounds. It was the "WMD" of its era - a military weapon that had no function for personal defense.

Thus, your argument that "well, they said arms because all armaments were small back then, not like today" isn't valid. They knew very well what their naval forces had, and they didn't explicitly ban them. If you want to get into the whole "what did they REALLY mean?" argument there are two possibilities:

1) They meant to protect private ownership of the most powerful weapons of the age (frigates with 1000 lb guns then, nuclear weapons today)

2) They assumed that there was a commonsense separation between small arms, used for defense and hunting, and the more capable weapons used for mass killing and military purposes.



Maybe the true intent of "the right to bear arms" really did include privately-owned warships complete with cannons. With the absence of an effective Navy, the Colonists employed hundreds of "privateers" who took on the greatest navy of the era with great success. They inflicted heavy damage, not only on the English naval fleet, but also on hundreds, if not thousands, of British ships engaging in commerce in the region. So, privately-owned "arms" of all kinds played a (not so small) part in successfully overthrowing tyranny ...a fact that might have been given some recognition and a sort of reverence by being included, immediately following the 1st, and arguably the most important, Article of the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Maybe the true intent of "the right to bear arms" really did include privately-owned
>warships complete with cannons.

That's quite possible, using the literal definition of "arms." If so then the Second Amendment applies equally to nuclear weapons, Sarin, antiaircraft weapons, biological weapons etc. While such devices/substances are not personal arms, they no doubt could serve a role overthrowing tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Maybe the true intent of "the right to bear arms" really did include privately-owned
>warships complete with cannons.

That's quite possible, using the literal definition of "arms." If so then the Second Amendment applies equally to nuclear weapons, Sarin, antiaircraft weapons, biological weapons etc. While such devices/substances are not personal arms, they no doubt could serve a role overthrowing tyranny.



Well, you brought up the warships and cannons, and I provided a relevant historical example where private warships were used. But, yes, all of the above could be used by citizens to overthrow their government. But I wonder ...why would folks who could afford a nuke or an F-15 ("the rich") want to overthrow the government that made them rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

> But I wonder ...why would folks who could afford a nuke or an F-15 ("the rich") want to overthrow the government that made them rich?



Really? I thought the right wing mantra is that government makes you poor, and that the rich got there ALL BY THEMSELVES.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

> But I wonder ...why would folks who could afford a nuke or an F-15 ("the rich") want to overthrow the government that made them rich?



Really? I thought the right wing mantra is that government makes you poor, and that the rich got there ALL BY THEMSELVES.


:DGawd! We need a sarcasm icon. :S But, seriously, does anyone really think a private citizen, no matter how rich, could afford to acquire, keep and maintain sophisticated modern weaponry (of the types mentioned by Bill) ...even if the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to include them?

Just to be clear ...I am not advocating that the 2nd Amendment refers to WMDs, RPGs, bombs, etc. Those are the types of weapons which are preferred (and have already been used) by lefties, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



I dunno a ragtag bunch of middle easterners have done a hell of a job of binding down major world military forces several times throughout the last several decades with much less weaponry than the citizens of the US have on hand. [:/] In Wisconsin alone on opening day of the deer hunt there were 600,000 guns in the woods. This composes the fifth largest army in the world represented by one state alone. I think the most ironic part of that angle is how "dangerous" the anti's claim guns are...yet here were 600,000 in one state alone being on the ready to fire and only one death during the 9 day season was the result of an accidental/purposeful fatal shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


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



I'll take two each, please. Do you take Visa?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?"



Where in the 2nd does it, "refer to muzzle loading single shot weapons"?

What's interesting is the wide array of interpretations of what the 2nd really intended...all dreamed up to fit personal agendas with respect to weapons.

What's funny is that none of the dreamers are willing to give up their agenda to compromise....there will never be agreement. You'll never make headway against the goobermint's interpretations until you can present a united front.

I wonder where the gun-o-phobes were in the '20s and '30s. Oh wait...those people weren't paranoid wackos wanting to control YOU...all for the misconception that they will be "safer".
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the way I see it:

Strictly speaking, I think arms means all arms...and yes, that includes nuclear weapons. But I'll never argue that civilians should have access to nukes - here's why:

1) Security - There are some very, very bad people out there who would like to get a nuke and use it to kill millions. The US government has to spend an enourmous amount of money on nuclear security. If nukes were distributed in civilian hands all over the country, how long do you think it would be before someone bad got a nuke and blew it up in a major city? Yes, I know criminals will steel guns...you can thrawrt most common criminals with a gun safe. How will a civilian ever protect a nuke against a well-organized, heavily armed terrorist group?

2) Cost - Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive. Even if I was a billionaire I'd still prefer to spend my money on something else. How many people out there could actually afford a nuke? A really, really small number.

3) Safe use - How could a civilian ever safely use a nuclear weapon? With small arms, all I need to do is find a place far away from other epople with a clear field and a good backstop and I can easily shoot all day without bothering anyone. You can't just go out in the desert and set one off a nuke. How would our country know if it was under attack or if it was just Johnny having some fun with his nuke? What if someone went and set one off just for fun and it started a war? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. Evan if it didn't start a war, what about the fallout? We still experience increased radiation all over the world from the fallout from tests in the 50s and 60s.

These are just the three big arguments I see. As I said in the beginning...to me, 'arms' means all arms. But the nuclear weapon argument isn't even worth having. Why fight about it? So a few rich people can have a pet nuke? We have bigger problems.

I know that some people reading this will argue that the same arguments apply to small arms, such as semi-automatic rifles, as well. I personally wouldn't agree. Why?

1) Security - yes, there are criminals and crazies out there who would like to steel an AR-15. It isn't that hard to buy a quality gun safe and thwart them. Point is for nukes, I have to protect against well-armed and organized terrorist groups; for a private firearm I pretty much just have to worry about the common criminals.

2) Cost - Sem- automatic weapons aren't that expensive to buy or operate. Indeed - the AR is the most popular firearm in the country. Obviously many, many people want them and can fford them.

3) Safe use - It isn't difficult at all to use a semi-automatic safely. I just need to find a place away from other people with a clear field and a good backstop and I can shoot all day and not bother anyone. And semi-automatics are used every day by millions of people for safe, legitimate purposes, to prove my point.


"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



I can't let you frame the argument as being merely personal protection. That was ONE reason individuals have the right to own arms.

The more important reason (since you just read the Federalist Papers) was so that the ultimate power (force) resided with the People. And those People could replace the government by force of arms when necessary. In that light, tanks, planes, grenades, RPGs, cannon, and anything else necessary to a popular uprising was deemed a right of the People.

I am not an advocate of the violent overthrow of the government. Nor do I see it happening in my lifetime. However, I try to learn from the past. The past tells us it can and will be necessary. To think otherwise is to be as arrogant as the Romans (remember them?). Also, I think it is a healthy thing for elected officials to know the possibility (however remote) exists.

Checks and balances. Checks and balances.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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



I can't let you frame the argument as being merely personal protection. That was ONE reason individuals have the right to own arms.

The more important reason (since you just read the Federalist Papers) was so that the ultimate power (force) resided with the People. And those People could replace the government by force of arms when necessary. In that light, tanks, planes, grenades, RPGs, cannon, and anything else necessary to a popular uprising was deemed a right of the People.

I am not an advocate of the violent overthrow of the government. Nor do I see it happening in my lifetime. However, I try to learn from the past. The past tells us it can and will be necessary. To think otherwise is to be as arrogant as the Romans (remember them?). Also, I think it is a healthy thing for elected officials to know the possibility (however remote) exists.

Checks and balances. Checks and balances.



Absolutely and I agree with you

I still do feel that arms were those that they could carry with them everywhere they would go. There were also requirements as to how much powder and ball they should have

Have you ever noticed however, how visceral the retorts get when you bring up the FACT that part of being armed was to keep government from having absolute power?

The anti-gunners get all wacky to a point it is fun to watch

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ALMOST agree with you. I would carry it a bit further. I don't think private citizens should have nukes because I don't think anyone should. Even the US. To have them is to have the power to use them...and they should never be used again.

I recently read some history of the first nuke program, the reaction of the creators to the first detonation, and the effects of the first two deployments. It is incredibly sobering.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to do a bit of research, but I think you are mistaken. I'm pretty sure privately owned merchant ships of the day were heavily armed (cannon) and this was acceptable. I seem to recall the government contracted privately owned and armed ships for various expeditions. There seems to be no issue there. Many of the units of the US Civil War were outfitted by individuals who provided cannon as personally owned property. I'm certain many of them returned to private ownership after the war. All seem to have been deemed rightful, then. They are proudly displayed in yards of Chattanooga residents today and still privately owned. Nobody seems concerned. I have actually bought one on the internet for a unit I was assigned to and wanted it for ceremonial use. No paperwork was necessary. Black powder firearms are not deemed firearms by the ATF (have fun with a hypothetical scenario there).

I think privately owned cannon were covered by the Second Amendment at the time it was written and continues to be so today. Again, research may prove me wrong...but I would have to see it.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would have to do a bit of research, but I think you are mistaken. I'm pretty sure privately owned merchant ships of the day were heavily armed (cannon) and this was acceptable. I seem to recall the government contracted privately owned and armed ships for various expeditions. There seems to be no issue there. Many of the units of the US Civil War were outfitted by individuals who provided cannon as personally owned property. I'm certain many of them returned to private ownership after the war. All seem to have been deemed rightful, then. They are proudly displayed in yards of Chattanooga residents today and still privately owned. Nobody seems concerned. I have actually bought one on the internet for a unit I was assigned to and wanted it for ceremonial use. No paperwork was necessary. Black powder firearms are not deemed firearms by the ATF (have fun with a hypothetical scenario there).

I think privately owned cannon were covered by the Second Amendment at the time it was written and continues to be so today. Again, research may prove me wrong...but I would have to see it.



Ok
I think we are talking past each other

And as you stated, there were, and are now, companies that did and can own all kinds of weapons

I am not saying that cannons and the like were ilegal to own and were restricted as such but, I think that in the context of the 2A, the founders were talking about ALL individuals being armed. That to me is what you can carry with all day everywhere you go

But I also do not think that this context limits ownership of other weapons

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are close. I still think the term 'arms' was meant to be more expansive than what an individual can carry. If the purpose was to overthrow a tyranical government as they had just done, they would not recognize such a limitation, would they? Indeed, I can think of quotes that indicate they had no illusion that they had just come up with a perfect form of government that would not need replacing. If it neede replacing, surely the People needed the tools to do it with? The same tools available to the government? To this point, those tools were called 'arms'.

Interesting except from a piece I just found:

Benjamin Franklin’s served the Continental Congress as "Minister Plenipotentiary.” Minister Plenipotentiary is defined as "A diplomatic representative ranking below an ambassador but having full governmental power and authority; a plenipotentiary." (2) This enabled Franklin to issue Letters of Marque with the authority of the Continental Congress. Letters of Marque authorized a privately owned vessel to make captures on behalf of a country at war.

But American privateering commissions were not recognized as such. Having not yet gained her independence from Britain, the Continental Congress technically could not issue Letters of Marque, The American colonies were no more than unruly factions under British rule. Captured privateers who operated under an American commission, were not granted prisoner of war status by the British. They were regarded as pirates, rebels or murderers and could expect to end their days in the noose. (4) But nonetheless, in March of 1776, congress passed the Privateering resolution, which granted colonists the right "…to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." (5)

The first ship to gain Benjamin Franklin’s American privateering commission was the “Black Prince”, a French-owned vessel so named for it’s black hull and near-legendary prowess and speed as a rumrunner. The Black Prince was crewed by Irish smugglers who would split the profits from the venture with the vessel’s owner. Franklin himself took no profit from privateering. His sole interest lay in the procurement of British prisoners for trade.

The Black Prince underwent extensive improvements to prepare her for this daunting task of Benjamin Franklin’s. She was approximately sixty-five feet in length by twenty feet in her beam (width). Her hold was retrofitted to accommodate fifty or more hammocks and small sleeping cubbyholes for her officers. She was armed with sixteen 4-pounder guns and thirty swivels. (6)

The Black Prince enjoyed a brilliant solo career, capturing an impressive thirty-five vessels before being joined by the Black Princess, who served as her consort ship. The Black Princess was “…a cutter of 60 feet keel & 20 feet beam mounting 16 three pounders and 24 swivels & Small arms with 65 men all Americans and Irish under the command of Capn Edward Marcartor of Boston." (7)

Together, the two ships terrorized British merchant shipping channels, thwarting all attempts to stop them and successfully capturing twenty prizes. "…we continue to insult the Coasts of the Lords of the Ocean with our little cruisers” Franklin wrote to Congress when describing his fleet’s progress. (8) The Black Prince and Princess continued their assaults until disaster struck on April 6th of 1780, when the Black Prince met her end as she struck a reef during an engagement along the coast of France.

Lastly, the "Fearnot" joined Franklin’s black fleet, sailing independently of the Black Princess. She was "…A fine large cutter" (9) which was equipped with eighteen six-pounder guns and twenty swivels. Between 1779 and 1780, the three ships brought in an impressive one hundred and fourteen prizes, eleven of which were retaken, seventy-six were ransomed, sixteen were brought in, one hundred and twenty six were paroled and eleven were lost, scuttled or burned. (8) In the end, their reign of terror was only partially successful in respect to exchanging prisoners, for although they captured many, the British remained uncooperative for the most part, during prisoner exchange negotiations. But Franklin’s ships were successful in doing what had never been done before- wreaking havoc upon the "Mistress of the Seas", as Britain was then known.

Ironically, toward the close of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin attempted to have a clause added to the peace treaty with Britain, prohibiting the practice of privateering in future conflicts. But despite the efforts of the good doctor, privateering continued to flourish. Much of this was due to the fact that the fledgling United States had no significant naval force with which to defend itself and that privateering was a highly effective method of accomplishing the young nation’s means.

Privateering continued to be practiced by the United States throughout the Civil War. To this very day, our government still maintains the right "…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." (10)
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another:

From the Delphos Herald, Oct. 1, 1930

Aplon Lechleitner, who died Monday, last member of Green Squad which had charge of cannon brought to Delphos after Civil War and now located in Library Park.

The death of Aplon Lechleitner, who passed away at Ft. Wayne Monday, recalls to some of the older residents some of the interesting incidents in the life of this city in the early days.

Mr. Lechleitner, a veteran of the Civil War, was a member of a gun squad of five which was formed to take charge of a cannon which was secured for Delphos following the Civil War, a reminder of the grim battle between the North and South. This is a one-pounder which was used throughout the war.

This gun was secured through the efforts of George W. Hunt, Isaac Scott, R.W. Lythe, John Feely and Henry Moennig. These men paid the expense of bringing the gun to Delphos and owned it jointly, ownership passing to those remaining upon the death of any of the five.

Mr. Moennig was the last of the five to pass away and gave the gun to the City of Delphos.

The gun squad which was formed to have charge of the cannon consisted of Fred Rauschart, John Clapper, James Point, J. McLaughlin and Aplon Lechleitner.

These men fired it many times upon occasions of elections and other times of general interest. It finally became unsafe to fire it and this practice ceased.

Information concerning the history of the gun and those who brought it to Delphos and handled it here was received from John Wahmhoff, local historian and curator of the museum at the public library.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I like the idea of a well armed militia. Let private individuals buy the arms, then the rest of us taxpayers won't have to pay for a bloated military.



It is a good thing there is a huge difference between a militia and our military.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0