The right to bear arms...DEFINE ARMS

[OF]

Your right to keep and bear arms is superseded by my right to not be blown up because of your ignorance or carelessness

These are not mutually exclusive. Your right not to be blown up does not mean I have no right to own the things that have the potential, if misused, to blow you up. If I blow you up, then I suffer the consequences. But you do not have the right to infringe on my rights because you are afraid of what I might or might not do at sometime in the future.

You have a right not to be blown up for no good reason. So, I won't blow you up unless you ask for it. But in the meantime, I reserve the right, as a free man walking the earth, to do as I darn well please. I reserve the right to own the materials necessary to blow you to tiny bits if that should become necessary.

How is arguing that something has the potential for disaster any different from the arguments that got us the magazine capacity limitations, or the 'assault-weapons' ban, or the full-auto licensing scheme or any of the rest of this nonsense?

- Gabe

[Joe Demko]

I require you to store your explosives properly and see that they are maintained and disposed of, as needed. I refuse to wait until I am already dead. After your ill-maintained stock has detonated and killed me or mine, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to make right the damage you caused. If you can show that you know the stuff works, how it is to be stored, that you have a suitable storage place, and that you can maintain/dispose of it, then load up on all the explosives you want. I worked with explosives, I do not fear them. I fear fools with explosives.

[OF]

Now you want to explain to me why just anybody should be able to possess the stuff w/o qualification or regulation?

You know, I heard about this guy who took an assault rifle and a bunch of high-capacity magazines and shot a bunch of people. So maybe we should regulate high capacity magazines and assault rifles? Or have mandatory training to exercise your 2nd amendment rights? Those assault rifles have some serious consequences if misused.

Just because some goofball blew up his house by being a total moron doesn't mean you have the right to tell me what I can and can not own. No one is disputing that explosives require respect and care in handling and are up there on the 'potential energy' scale. That is not at issue. The issue is prior restraint...or at least part of the issue is.

- Gabe

[Joe Demko]

I'll throw right in for the idea that anybody should be able to own all the explosives he wants, without restriction or regulation, the very first year the U.S. has 0 fireworks related injuries.

[Joe Demko]

You know, I heard about this guy who took an assault rifle and a bunch of high-capacity magazines and shot a bunch of people.

That is an example of a deliberate, premeditated criminal act. A poorly stored rifle and ammunition won't detonate, killing/maiming whoever has the bad luck to be too close. Explosives do not make a good combination with people who are ignorant or disrespectful of their capabilities and limitations.

[BigG]

The trouble with owning anything 20mm and above is the prohibitive cost of feeding it.

[OF]

The assault rifle example was to show how the potential of a device or substance is not the only factor in determining how to attempt regulation.

A poorly handled rifle or pistol certainly may accidently discharge and cause all sorts of trouble. An improperly stored firearm can be accessed by those who don't know what they're doing and then people can get hurt. Not all injuries and deaths associated with firearms are through criminal intent. Same can be said for gasoline or propane, reloading supplies, electricity, swimming pools, you name it.

I could care less how many fireworks related injuries there are. The more the better. That's nothing but Darwin in action. It warms my heart. It means we are free and people are being held responsible for their actions by nature herself, which is always preferable to the state. Every now and again, innocent people get caught in the gene-removal event and it's a real bummer. But that's life. I remember the story of the woman who put her husband's (?) pistol in the stove for safe-keeping. Forgot it was there, fired the stove up and cooked off a round killing a kid in the room. Dangerous items require respect and attention commensurate with the level of potential. That's just the way it is. So, should I be arrested for storing my gun in the stove? As long as I don't hurt anyone, it's nobody's business but my own. It's not about the prior, it's about the after.

Explosives do not make a good combination with people who are ignorant or disrespectful of their capabilities and limitations.

I agree! As far as I can tell, we only disagree on whether or not the state should tell us who can and cannot have dangerous devices or substances.

- Gabe

I think a good rule of thumb is:

1) No nukes.
2) No biological.
3) No Chemical (gas, liquid, or solid).

Otherwise, as long as you can store it safely, use it judiciously, and maintain it in good working order I personally have no problem with it.

I could live with a rule that read:

"If you can't pick it up it's not personal arms."

That'd rule out armour, aircraft, artillery and most of the big stuff leaving you with firearms, body armour, grenades & small explosives, anti-armour rockets and missiles (shoulder launced variety), stingers, machineguns (up to about .50cal). That'd due in case ole King George W. ever tries to put an end to liberty.

It's not the weapons, it's the people that you have to fear. If they wanted it, criminals can (and do) make their own machineguns, grenades, explosives etc. Laws don't stop them.

[Joe Demko]

Every now and again, innocent people get caught in the gene-removal event and it's a real bummer.

I used the fireworks example w/o expanding on it enough. Cletus dix around with an M-80 and loses a few fingers. That's Darwin. Cletus dix around with a kilo of plastic explosive, and everybody in the apartments beside, above, and below him pays the price. That's stupid, tragic, and avoidable. Cletus can't easily get the plastic explosive right now, and that's the way I like it. If he could just walk into a hardware or gunstore and buy it, we'd have problems. Look at the fools who do themselves harm trying to make homebrew pipebombs. Blowing themselves up is fine by me. I don't see the need to make it easy for them to destroy their neighbors in their foolishness, as well.

[Frohickey]

Bill of Rights - 1791
Militia Act - 1792
National Defense Act - 1916
National Firearms Act - 1934
Gun Control Act - 1968
Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
Brady HANDGUN CONTROL Act - 1993
Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT (Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban) - 1997

-----------------------

Of the 226 years that the United States of America has been around, the first federal gun control laws were only needed in the last 68 years? Could it be that the reason for this is the rise of crime due to Prohibition and bleeding-heart prison reform that turned prison into free room&board?

[Derek Zeanah]

I'll throw right in for the idea that anybody should be able to own all the explosives he wants, without restriction or regulation, the very first year the U.S. has 0 fireworks related injuries.

Hey, great standard! That'll save a lot of lives!

Now, we just need to apply it to cars, firearms, bicycles, pools, fire, .....

[ctdonath]

I think a good rule of thumb is:

WHY? What principles do you apply which conclude the prohibition of an item?

"Cuz I think it's bad" just doesn't cut it. "Assault weapons" are a perfect example: a majority of legislators decided that "assault weapons" are "bad", concocted some half-baked definition of what to ban, and now we're screaming for our rights.

"Man portable only" doesn't cut it either. One man can carry a suitcase nuke, a gallon of anthrax, or a balloon of sarin.

"Nothing crew served" also doesn't work. This country exists partly because of privately owned cannons and battleships; I doubt the Founding Fathers had those in mind for banning.

To answer this recurring issue requires PRINCIPLES: a sound legal, moral, social, etc. basis for giving a government the right to forcefully (via death if necessary) compel someone to not keep & bear a particular arm. Just stating that requirement plainly shows why no arms may be banned outright: the whole point of recognizing the RKBA in the Constitution is PRECISELY to prohibit the government from banning arms of any type. To exclude any weapon from the Constitutional intent of the word "arms" is to hypocritically violate the plain meaning of the right we, at TFL, hold dear.

The only way to "prohibit" anything is to demonstrate that a particular weapon, via the actions of its owner/possessor, constitutes an actual threat. In this case, 'tis not the weapon type being prohibited, but the action for which the actor is being held responsible. A fine set of model rules for determining whether a threat is present is Cooper's Four Rules: if someone is breaking one of the rules, then others have the natural right to respond to the threat created by breaking that rule.

"Arms" means weapons of all kinds. To exclude any weapon from that term as used in the Constitution is to accept the guiding principles of the anti-gun mob. If you have a problem with someone keeping/bearing a particular weapon, deal with the responsibilities involved.

[Drjones]

ct: you make a very good argument with lots of good points, and what you say is true, up to a point.

However, it would seem to me that every individual who says "Oh sure, let 'em have whatever they want!" has no concept at all of the destructive capability of these weapons.

Certain items are called "Weapons of MASS Destruction" for a reason: they are meant to destroy a LOT of, if not ALL of, whatever the hell the weapon hits.

As I have stated before, (though as people seem to gloss over my posts, I wonder why I bother repeating myself )
in real, philosophical terms, and to the letter of the 2A, you are utterly correct.

The problem lies in reality.

Ideal world: Everyone can own whatever they want, including nukes. I think everyone SHOULD be allowed to own whatever they want. It is fully within their right as a human being. BUT the problem lies in the reality of it all, which is being wholly ignored.

Real world: I want you to explain to me the consequences of recklessness and ND's with something like a nuke. Hell, even a crate of C4.

No one has yet addressed this issue. Funny, isn't it?

It isn't that I do not trust people with such weapons. (Well, most people I don't...but that is irrelevant) The problem is that accidents happen. There are loads of ND's each year with guns.

My question is: how many ND's with WMD's such as nukes, C4, and the like, in order for you to say "it ain't worth it. Average citizens do not have the means to safely store such weapons."
How many neighborhoods must be incinerated? An ND with a nuke could kill hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, depending on where it occured. (Think Manhattan)

Everyone here has tactfully dodged this point: there is no comparison between firearms and ordinance. None. If you have an ND or "accident" of any sort with an AK-47 in your home, you will not kill everyone around you.

If you have an ND or "accident" with say, a 500lb bomb, or a crate of C-4, the same is NOT true; you WILL take out a LOT of other people.

No one has yet addressed the issue of storage. WHERE would such weapons be stored? Surely not in the home, for reasons I have mentioned.

And what of the fact that ordinance becomes less stable as it ages? You REALLY think every single individual who would own such weapons would maintain meticulous care of them? Not if you could buy them anywhere.

Again, my problem isn't with your philosophy; I agree with you fully on that. However, proponents of this are not being realistic at all.

I'll just sit back and wait for my post to get ignored. Funny how people ignore stuff they can't argue with...

[444]

Drjones
This is a tough issue. It is obvious to me that a line has to be drawn somewhere for the reasons you give. Personally owning a nuke weapon would upset the balance of world power along with the death toll you mention. As much as I believe in individual freedom, I find it ridiculous to even discuss the private ownership of nuclear weapons. Now C4 is another matter. I am not sure what legitimate purpose you would have for owning it, but as far as I know, it is legal to own dynamite for private use. I am no expert but I believe dynamite would have more problems than C4. And problems do arise with dynamite. Not so much with private ownership, but with old dynamite lying around abandoned mines. But the problem is very small and rare. I think the idea of being able to afford this stuff is a good one. If someone can affford to own a plane that is capable of dropping a bomb, why not let him buy a bomb and drop it at a military bombing range. It seems silly to me, but why not if that is what the guy wants to spend his money on ?

[tyme]

(golgo) I used the fireworks example w/o expanding on it enough. Cletus dix around with an M-80 and loses a few fingers. That's Darwin. Cletus dix around with a kilo of plastic explosive, and everybody in the apartments beside, above, and below him pays the price. That's stupid, tragic, and avoidable. Cletus can't easily get the plastic explosive right now, and that's the way I like it.

First, that's a local problem, not a national problem. Until the Constitution is deemed worthy of the shredder, fed.gov should keep out of regulating explosives. Second, what hardware store is going to sell semtex?

I agree NBC weapons are troubling. So troubling, in fact, that DHS is preparing for biochem attacks regardless of the fact that it's already a federal crime to even think about using them. Sounds like that law is working pretty darn well. And since they are nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, there ought to be an amendment dealing with them. Any reasonable amendment restricting use, sale, import, transfer, storage, or any other aspect of NBC weapons would have no trouble getting ratified.

Drjones, c4 is not a WoMD.

(Drjones) How many neighborhoods must be incinerated? An ND with a nuke could kill hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, depending on where it occured. (Think Manhattan)

That sounds like a valid target for application of the interstate commerce clause if I've ever heard one. Maybe we don't need an amendment after all.

Scared of C4? Complain to your local city council. And they'd better adhere strictly to a balance between protection of innocents and responsible ownership. Protecting against willful detonation is not valid.

[Drjones]

ahhh...gotta love the sound of people ignoring your point....

Protecting against willful detonation is not valid.

What the heck does that mean? I am talking about the consequences of ND's (Negligent Discharges) with such weapons.

Care to actually speak to any of my points?

[TreeSquid]

I've been talking this over with my friends and we've come up with what we consider the best definition of "arms" to be.

How about "An 'arm' is any non-explosive weapon (the ammo, not the gun itself :P) that can be carried WITH AMMO, by one man."

What do you guys think?

[Christopher II]

Doc Jones -

Your points, while well-taken, are really not as relevant as you claim.

. I think everyone SHOULD be allowed to own whatever they want. It is fully within their right as a human being.

Your sentence should have ended there. It is indeed within one's rights as a human being to own anything they can buy, barter, or create. That is the reality of the situation. There is no justification for infringing upon the right of an individual to own property. Once you say otherwise, even in the most limited case, the entire philosophical house of cards comes crashing down around your ears.

Now, on to specifics. Ctdonath has the right idea on how property rights are structured. If you use an object to threaten the life or property of another person, that other person can take action against you. Note that this action must necessaraly be reactive; you can't forbid your negihbor from owning a weapon just because he might threaten you with it at some future date. However, if he does threaten you, you can sue him, call the cops, shoot him deader than Ska, whatever is appropriate.

Real world: I want you to explain to me the consequences of recklessness and ND's with something like a nuke. Hell, even a crate of C4.

You already know the consequences. People get hurt or killed, and their property damaged or destroyed. Similar to what can happen in the case of an ND with a firearm, just on a larger scale.

The difference, though, is only one of scale. I don't see one death as being any more tragic than a thousand.

Everyone here has tactfully dodged this point: there is no comparison between firearms and ordinance. None. If you have an ND or "accident" of any sort with an AK-47 in your home, you will not kill everyone around you.

If you have an ND or "accident" with say, a 500lb bomb, or a crate of C-4, the same is NOT true; you WILL take out a LOT of other people.

Again, so what? When accidents happen, sometimes people die. That does not justify a prior restraint on my rights (unless you accept that I can impose a prior restraint on your right to own an AK, because I'm afraid that you'll kill someone someday.

No one has yet addressed the issue of storage. WHERE would such weapons be stored? Surely not in the home, for reasons I have mentioned.

Know much about explosives? I could keep small amounts of bulk explosives out in the barn, like farmers have done since time immemorial. Blasting caps get stored in the shipping cases, Primacord gets stored on the reel. Larger quantities of bulk HE (hundreds of pounds or more) can be stored out in the backyard, in a top-vented Conex blast cabinet. Easy enough.

As for nukes, hell, nukes are some of the safest things going. I could keep an SADM or a B61 sitting on the floor of my apartment in perfect safety. Modern nuclear weapons are just this side of impossible to set off by accident.

And what of the fact that ordinance becomes less stable as it ages? You REALLY think every single individual who would own such weapons would maintain meticulous care of them? Not if you could buy them anywhere.

No more than I think everyone who owns a gun will be all safe and law-abiding with it. Neither do I care. I'll repeat it again. There is no justification, ever, EVER, for an a priori restraint on my rights.

I'll just sit back and wait for my post to get ignored. Funny how people ignore stuff they can't argue with...

Don't be so smug, Doc. Your arguments weren't all that great.

- Chris

[JPM70535]

I dont read anywhere in the 2nd ammendment any limitation on the type of weaponry that may be legally possessed by the People.

Common sense dictates that while the People may keep whatever weapons they care to, They are going to have a devil of a time packing a Howitzer or a 16 inch rifle off a BB.

However, that having been said, if the "people" can afford it, they should be allowed to have it.

Personally I'll stick to my 45

[OF]

Seriously Doc, we're trying to have a civil conversation here about a serious and complex issue. If you want to participate, please be kind enough to leave the condescension and exasperated eye-rolling at the door.

- Gabe

[OF]

What do you guys think?

Sorry, Squid. Before I'm going to get on board, I'm going to need some evidence that the framers of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment intended the right to bear arms to apply to man-portable, non-explosive weapons/ordinance only. So far, I haven't seen it.

The 'man-portable' thing is pretty silly if you think about it. Portable by who? Ahnold? Richard Simmons? How about portable by Doctor Ruth? A catapult is certainly not man-portable. But a Carl Gustav is. Yet the Gustav is far more powerful. So what is the point of the 'man-portable' definition? To restrict ownership to less-powerful arms? Or only those an infantryman would need when called up to battle?

I ain't buying it.

- Gabe

[ctdonath]

Real world: I want you to explain to me the consequences of recklessness and ND's with something like a nuke. Hell, even a crate of C4.
No one has yet addressed this issue. Funny, isn't it?

Ah, but I _DID_ address it.

The problem with WMDs and large explosives is they are inherently "pointed" at everyone within range (and that can be a very big range), so they violate Cooper's Rule #2, and as such you can move against anyone who is storing them improperly. If, however, someone CAN & DOES store it properly (as 444 describes), there isn't a problem so leave 'em alone.

To rephrase:
Start with Rule #1, tweaked to address WMDs: "All weapons are in their most dangerous state (armed, loaded, sharp, etc.)."
With that presumed, move to Rule #2: "Never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy."
WMDs "point" at everything/everyone within a wide range, so unless very carefully stored far from anyone (as 444 describes), you can presume that anyone within range is at significant risk, and thus has the natural right to act in self-defense.

My point is that we cannot ban any weapon (including WMDs), but we certainly hold the possessor responsible for credibly threatening a great many people. This may seem nuanced, but it is significant to avoid a slippery slope.

[Tamara]

If you have an ND or "accident" of any sort with an AK-47 in your home, you will not kill everyone around you.

That will make surprisingly small condolence to the poor schlub that your AK-47 ND does kill. As he bleeds out, he can think "Oh, thank god it was just me and not 5 or 10 people."

I'll just sit back and wait for my post to get ignored. Funny how people ignore stuff they can't argue with...

You mean the same way you are ignoring points, or a different way?

I mixed up my first 5# batch of black powder while you were still using training wheels, Drjones, don't lecture me on the dangers of explosives, h'mkay?

[tyme]

However, it would seem to me that every individual who says "Oh sure, let 'em have whatever they want!" has no concept at all of the destructive capability of these weapons.

And you seem to have no faith in economics, at least as far as [relatively expensive] WoMD go. Joe Irresponsible is not going to be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for those weapons. What if Joe knows how to make sarin and does so without killing himself in the process? That doesn't sound like someone who's unintentionally going to store it unsafely to me. Explain how 18USC229 is going to stop Joe from being an idiot.

Real world: I want you to explain to me the consequences of recklessness and ND's with something like a nuke. Hell, even a crate of C4.

How exactly do you have a negligent discharge with a nuke? c-4, sure, but again that's for state and local to deal with. I bet Idaho would have less of a problem with a few kilos of c-4 than Rhode Island. Here are the consequences of a nuke: Some idiot stores a nuke improperly. Whoops, that someone couldn't afford a nuke even if the government subsidized 80% of the cost. Okay, Joe Irresponsible manages to get a five-finger discount, and now it's sitting in Joe's SUV. Worst case scenario: some 5 year old comes along and starts pushing buttons. The PAL blows up the ignition circuitry. Now Joe has incredible liability (stolen nuclear weapon) but nothing useful (a thousand pound paperweight, very difficult to damage). Sounds dangerous to me.
(nevermind the fact that this whole time there's a bomb sticking out of the SUV's rear hatch)

No one has yet addressed the issue of storage. WHERE would such weapons be stored? Surely not in the home, for reasons I have mentioned.

In a safe manner. If someone wants to keep a few ounces of c-4, no government should be able to tell them "no, you can't have that, it might cause serious damage to your home." If someone wants a few dozen kilograms, that becomes in my mind potentially subject to local regulation (the state should punt that issue to local gov't). Aren't there already fire codes to deal with the people who are licensed to store explosives? Why make it illegal if the gov't doesn't even trust licensees to store stuff safely?

The government may have the ability to regulate certain dangerous weapons due to powers granted to it by the Constitution, but that doesn't mean economics wouldn't save the world from Joe and his stockpile which includes anthrax, sarin, c-4, and a B83.

Unlike the offense definition for chemical weapons in the US Code, biological weapons are not illegal if they're made, stored, transferred, etc. for non-weapon use. Which is lucky, too. Otherwise these people would be in jail right now. Poorly stored chemical weapons don't pose some immense danger to everyone in a city. Something would have to detonate and turn them into an aerosol before they'd be dangerous to more than a few people. Remember, a terrorist group with non-trivial, but admittedly not massive, resources only managed to put together a very impure batch of sarin that killed only seven people when purposely placed in a subway with a bunch of people.

[Glorf]

If nuclear explosives and long-range missiles are banned, how will I defend my starship from space pirates and hostile aliens on the long haul between Sol and Upsilon Andromedae?

~Glorf