The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18, 2001, 03:50 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
I get so tired of addressing this particular line of nonsense that I spent some time looking for relevant court cases that had ruled on this.

I found this one and have been using it to address that question:
Quote:
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980)

"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
Using this decision or the words of the founding fathers, where would you draw the line on what constitutes an "arm" (and is therefore protected) and what constitutes "ordnance" (and is therefore not protected).

Is an M203 an arm?

Is a 20mm Lahti ordnance?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 03:54 PM   #2
USP45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2000
Location: Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,562
Explain to me again why we need to draw this particular line?
__________________
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
USP45 is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 04:04 PM   #3
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I see absolutely nothing wrong with owning a cannon. They do put such emphasis in Cival War reenactments.
 
Old May 18, 2001, 04:35 PM   #4
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
In theory, I see no problem with a private citizen owning a nuclear bomb (as long as he doesn't keep it armed, which is the rough equivelent of pointing a gun at everyone inside the blast radius.) Assuming you can find someone to sell you a nuke, as long as you're not using it to threaten somebody, what's the big deal?

In practice, however...

Later,
Chris
__________________
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein

"Contrary to popular belief, your vote does not matter, and you cannot make a difference." - Bob Murphy, "Picking Neither of Two Evils"

My PGP Public Key
Christopher II is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 04:42 PM   #5
jthuang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Posts: 823
Hm. If the purpose of the 2A is to provide a fierce deterrent to government tyranny, would not the citizenry have to be armed as well as (or perhaps better armed) than the government itself? How would this purpose be served by limiting the type of arms that the citizenry could keep and bear?

IIRC during the Revolution the "rabble in arms" fielded privately-owned warships, which would be the equivalent of some well-to-do individual today owning the USS Hornet or similar aircraft carrier. While my knowledge of late 1700s warships is scant, I imagine part of the reason private warships were available back then was the easy conversion -- get a few cannon, move them onto a merchant vessel and poof, instant warship. But in theory....

Justin

jthuang is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 04:55 PM   #6
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
Well, I can tell you as one who has extensive experience with nuclear weapons, I wouldn't mind having my own in my back yard.

I don't have enough back yard to have my own LF, not to mention an LCF.

Gotta hit those six numbers someday. LOL.

Michael
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 06:20 PM   #7
bookkie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 1999
Location: Arbuckle, CA, usa
Posts: 1,269
We?ve addressed this issue several times here on TFL?. As I see it, it comes down to one thing?. Trust? we either trust our fellow citizens or we don?t?. please read this judges opinion carefully?. You can see the fear in his reasoning? this fear leads to miss-trust of his fellow citizens. So where is the line drawn? Where is it drawn for the government? Why do we trust them to have such weapons? United we stand, divided we fall? We either trust each other or we don?t. We stand together to fight for all or we don?t?. If you would trust yourself not to set one off? then is your fear so great that you would distrust a fellow citizen to act any different than yourself?

I trust and do not fear my fellow citizens. I know that if someone goes off the deep end, there will be those among us who will stop them. It?s that simple.


__________________
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
bookkie is offline  
Old May 18, 2001, 07:45 PM   #8
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185

As I heard it, at times the US army borrowed/was assited with privately-owned ships AND cannon.

The US managed to do a LOT back then with things people freely pitched in.


Battler. . . .

Battler is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 01:07 AM   #9
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
The whole idea of letting private citizens bear nukes is idiocy. The only people who could even safely store and maintain them(which requires a LOT of work and money), would be rich people. So basically we'd have rich guys with nukes, and everyone else could aspire to one day join the elite. No thank you.

Nukes have no value as a tool of defending civil liberty, none whatsoever. They are a tool that governments use to intimidate each other via threatening to wipe us little people out of existance.
Dangus is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 10:33 AM   #10
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
So? You could make the same argument against anything from an M2HB to a sharpened nail file. That's no reason to forbid their ownership.

The natural human right to acquire and possess property is not dependant on the perceived usefulness of said property.

I'll agree with your last sentence, though. But my problem is with the government, not the tool.

Later,
Chris
Christopher II is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 10:52 AM   #11
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
Sorry if I don't consider a radioactive weapon that in the case of an accident could kill you and a million other people around you ok for anyone to own.

Personally I'd tear the entire bill of rights up myself if it was that or let civilians possess nukes. It's not even remotely about trust, it's about common sense and sanity. Screwups with a rifle may kill 1 person, abuses with a rifle may kill a dozen, accidentally setting off a modern nuke, even ten miles outside a city would obliterate it regardless.

It's as absurd as saying we have a right to keep and bear VX gas. Drop a canister by accident, oops, whole town disolves as their DNA breaks down under the catalyst effect.
Dangus is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 11:09 PM   #12
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349


Tear up the Bill of Rights? Really...

Tell me, what makes the government (which owns plenty of nuclear weapons, as well as other WMDs) so much more deserving of your confidence than a competent private citizen? Is it their reputation for honesty? Their record of adherence to the laws of the country?

It has nothing to do with trust, common sense, sanity, or anything else other than property rights. I believe that every person has the right to acquire and own property, as long as said property is obtained through fair and willing exchange. A nuclear weapon is, as far as I'm concerned, just another piece of property. As long as it is not being used to injure or threaten me (or my legal property,) I could care less that a private citizen owns one.

Later,
Chris
__________________
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein

"Contrary to popular belief, your vote does not matter, and you cannot make a difference." - Bob Murphy, "Picking Neither of Two Evils"

My PGP Public Key
Christopher II is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 11:39 PM   #13
Dizzipator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 1999
Location: -
Posts: 156
Privately owned nuclear weapons?

Check out

The Libertarian Chocolate-Covered Neutron Bomb: Part 2

http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.19/chocolate_bomb2.html




Part 1 is not critical, and part 2 is the really funny part.

Part 1:

http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.18/chocolate_bomb.html


Dizzipator is offline  
Old May 19, 2001, 11:58 PM   #14
Oleg Volk
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 7,022
1. In practical terms, it would be awfully hard for nutcases to get enough resources for nukes.

2. The reason why governments with nukes are perceived as "trustworthy" is the theoretical number of failsafes against accidental or malicious use.

3. Do you think Middle East would have even more active warfare going on now id Israelis didn't have their bottled sunshine handy?
Oleg Volk is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 08:08 AM   #15
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
I, personally, do not consider cosmic catastrophes to be arms. However, the reality of nuclear weapons in all countries is that an individual controls the use of that weapon. Here in the US, the list of recent individuals to have that control is Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Doesn't everyone feel safe?
Byron Quick is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 08:18 AM   #16
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Tell me, what makes the government (which owns plenty of nuclear weapons, as well as other WMDs) so much more deserving of your confidence than a competent private citizen? Is it their reputation for honesty? Their record of adherence to the laws of the country?
How can this even be a serious question with anyone who doesn't have severe head trauma in their past? I mean really, the rationale behind this is quite simple. The government, while not perfect, has resources vastly more extensive than ours'. A nuke is not a baby, it's not a car, it's a VERY dangerous piece of radioactive material that can accidentally make your city cease to be. The government is under obligation to keep these out of populated areas for the most part, and the government has a massive amount of failsafes and checks and balances that make the checks and balances in the constitution look wimpy(because they are!). A nuke, if left just sitting around, could eventually just go off all on it's own. Why? Radiation eats circuits, eats casing materials. A private citizen cannot deal with the logistics of this. If they can, they have to be rich. So now you wanna make something that can end life on earth available to only rich people, creating an even more extreme division of social groups? Socialism has some valid points, and people wouldn't fall for it if there weren't some appealing arguments. People are not getting a fair chance to move ahead in life right now, and if you gave rich people nukes just imagine how much worse it might get. Despite what conservatives and libertarians may say, monopolies are real and they can be an extreme danger to public wellfare and our economy. Imagine trying to break up a monopoly when the owner has nukes. I shudder at the thought of that. If you think you or I are ever gonna so much as see one if they are made legal you're smoking crack.

Then the chem/bio. Those are just property too! Why don't we just release them into the air and kill everyone? Frankly I see absolutely no excuse for the US to have the stockpile of this crap that we do, but we should keep at least very small amounts on hand for research purposes, to invent countermeasures and other safety measures. The common citizen does not have any benefit from owning these. They are a further safety hazard in the home and they will be of little use in defending our civil liberties.

To make matters worse, when you go and say completely stupid things like allowing everyone to own nukes, you only push us one step closer to no guns. Fence sitters will never be convinced we are safe when we have madmen among us professing the lovely joys of nuke ownership! Wanna help HCI and MMM take our guns away? Keep preaching that. Promiting private nukes is a damn bad idea.
Dangus is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 08:35 AM   #17
bookkie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 1999
Location: Arbuckle, CA, usa
Posts: 1,269
?Screwups with a rifle may kill 1 person, abuses with a rifle may kill a dozen, accidentally setting off a modern nuke, even ten miles outside a city would obliterate it regardless.?

Dangus, sorry, but I must respectfully disagree?. This same line of reasoning is currently being used to justify gun control. Their ultimate goal is complete confiscation of guns from all but the military?. Fear of what someone may do is not a reason for denial of a right. Take a look at the current debate over the ?50 cal sniper rifle? (sorry only use the term to stress the point). You can read the same fear and horror of someone owning one of these by the politicians as you present in the above statement. I?ve often heard a couple of the same type of comments from some of our anti-gunner senators? ie? ?the Constitution be dammed?. The same arguments can be used for the A-bomb as can be for any small arm. Currently it is only governments, which have the manpower and resources to put one together. Now think of a law-less government the same as a crook. Will these governments not always be able to build one? Is our country to become the world?s police to prevent these governments from getting their hands on nukes? Fear is a powerful weapon. It can and is being used to disarm us.


__________________
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
bookkie is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 10:22 AM   #18
Oleg Volk
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 7,022
So, if logistics of storing and operating nukes were simpler (say, HTML editor vs. an old-style printing press) and the cost was down with any other weapon (don't laugh, you can get a 1GHz PC for less than old mainframes cost), would you support private ownership? Or how about hand-held blasters and the like? You don't mind black powder cannon, so requirement of a crew to operate doesn't make a weapon ineligible.
Oleg Volk is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 10:28 AM   #19
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
Oh joy, this is getting to be fun! That's a long rebuttal, Dangus, so allow me to take your points one at a time...

"The government is under obligation to keep these out of populated areas for the most part, and the government has a massive amount of failsafes and checks and balances that make the checks and balances in the constitution look wimpy(because they are!)."

Well, I'll agree about the checks and balances in the Constitution being wimpy. But the failsafes in US nuclear procedure are equally weak, because they depend on the actions of honorable men. In practice, the President can order a nuclear attack against any target in the world, and it would be carried out. Do you trust the President with that kind of power?

"A nuke, if left just sitting around, could eventually just go off all on it's own. Why? Radiation eats circuits, eats casing materials."

No, a nuke can't (where did you hear that it could?) It's pretty obvious that you don't know much about nuclear technology. First off, the Plutonium used to construct the pit is an alpha emitter, and not a very powerful one. In layman's terms, Plutonium is not very radioactive. Every advance in nuclear weapons technology in the past thirty years has gone into making nuclear devices easier and safer to handle.

"If they can, they have to be rich. So now you wanna make something that can end life on earth available to only rich people, creating an even more extreme division of social groups?"

I don't "wanna" make anything available to anyone. I just don't care what other people own as long as it (1) was legally obtained, and (2) is not being used to threaten or injure other people, or their property. It is probably true that nuclear weapons would only be available to the (at least moderately) wealthy. So? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that he is a moral cripple waiting for an opportunity to go on a killing spree.

Conversely, the book that I mentioned in an above post details how it is possible to build a small nuclear device using simple equipment for under $2000. No rich/poor nuke gap here!!!

I'll skip the rant about the evils of Capitalism, because it's not really relevant to the subject at hand.

"If you think you or I are ever gonna so much as see one if they are made legal you're smoking crack."

I don't smoke. But you are right. You or I will likely never see a nuke if they were made legal. Can you guess why? (I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with money or the government.)

"Then the chem/bio. Those are just property too! Why don't we just release them into the air and kill everyone?"

Sometimes I wonder...

Do you think that, if you possessed a canister of VX, Tabun, or other nasty chemical agent, that you would feel compelled to "release them into the air and kill everyone?" No? Then why do you think that I would want to do that?

"The common citizen does not have any benefit from owning these. They are a further safety hazard in the home and they will be of little use in defending our civil liberties."

Those two sentences could have come directly from the Sarah Brady anti-gun phrasebook. Re-read my last post on property rights not being dependent upon utility.

"To make matters worse, when you go and say completely stupid things like allowing everyone to own nukes, you only push us one step closer to no guns. Fence sitters will never be convinced we are safe when we have madmen among us professing the lovely joys of nuke ownership!"

I don't use these arguments with antis or fence-sitters. I save them for my allies. If nothing else, it's an interesting mental exercise and a check on the consistency of our beliefs.

Later,
Chris
Christopher II is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 10:56 AM   #20
AR15shooter
Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2001
Posts: 94
Nukes for everyone?

I have to say that our founding fathers probably envisioned weapons of mass destruction, such as firearms of today, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, apache helicopters, and so on. SHould people be allowed to own thes types of weapons? Why not ,it is there right, but what if the likes of Charles Whitman had an M1 Abrahms or a tow missle system or the Millenium Falcon for that matter. Imagine the destruction that would be done, but remember the citzens who fired back would be equally armed. My thought is that nukes are built to intimidate and built with the hopes that they will never be used, Im sure the Russians love their children too. In the unlikely event that the govt ever turned on its citizens with nukes the populace would lose of course. In a conventional war we stand a chance(look at Afganistan) but in a nuclear war we are done. I dont think that the goverment has any right to have anything more powerful than the citizens do, Remember to fear the govt that fears your guns. They would most certainly fear our Nukes also.
AR15shooter is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 11:37 AM   #21
Oleg Volk
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 7,022
If you read 16c commentaries from some thinkers in Poland, Holy Roman Empire. they thought that siege cannon would make war untenable, too. Eventually, such technology will become more available and easier to use -- and we better not ensure that only the thugs have it.
Oleg Volk is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 04:45 PM   #22
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Why we should draw the line...

I really hope this isn't the line of debate that most of you are using in non-gun forums because the whole point of the comment is to draw people into a position that the vast majority of the world outside TFL sees as untenable (defense of the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons) and make you appear to be either an idiot or crazed extremist.

Now you can either formulate a convincing debate that individual ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed or you can accept that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute and try to find some justification in the Constitution and the law for where those lines are drawn.

Let me tell those of you arguing for weapons of mass destruction - your arguments are not convincing me and I am probably the most sympathetic listener you will ever have for the argument. Some of them are patent BS - somebody is claiming that there is a book that shows you how to build a nuclear bomb for $2,000? I bet that is a real shock to the several national governments across the world spending millions to develop such technology. I guess they just had not checked amazon.com recently?

If somebody CAN formulate a convincing argument (and support it with the Constitution) then let's hear it; because we could all use it.

It seems to me more likely that none of us will be able to present an argument that is convincing even to fellow gunnies and will therefore be better off in discussing how the words of the founders and past law shows unequivocably that the "right to keep and bear arms" definitely includes all type of firearms and man-portable weapons. The case I provided above is one example of that - does anyone else have another?


Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 05:23 PM   #23
Munro Williams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 936
This is really nuts

No, folks should not be allowed to own their own nukes, nerve gas bombs, or ebola virus weapons. The physics of weapons of mass destruction are such that the weapons operator CANNOT control them. Comparing these weapons to artillery pieces is literally like comparing kitchen matches to super novae. No single person can control them. Their use must, because of the magnitude of their effects, be authorized by a group of people, namely the President and a representative, at least, of the Congress. Their use is an act of war, and if anyone here thinks that any single person has the right to wage war, well, your potato's been bakin' too long.

The fact that I even have to describe this is absurd.
Munro Williams is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 06:43 PM   #24
Christopher II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,349
Bartholomew -

Take a look at my last post. I very specifically state that I do not, repeat NOT use these arguments in non-pro-gun forums.

Hmmm. Perhaps I should try to clarify my own position. I do, honestly and truly, think that private citizens should be able to purchase and own nuclear devices. My belief in property rights is very much absolute. However, I don't go around calling for the legalization of nuclear devices, because there are more important things to spend my time on. Heck, I'd be thrilled if the '94 AW ban was repealed, and a repeal of the NFA would be a dream come true. My living to see either of those happenings is unlikely enough, and I realize full well that the legalization of WMDs will probably never happen.

But that doesn't prevent me from arguing the case in theory.

(As an aside, can anyone quote to me the law that forbids the sale of nuclear devices to civilians? Just curious.)

Bartholomew, you talk about the Constitution (I'm assuming that you mean the Second Amendment.) Haven't we been saying all along here that the RKBA is not dependent on the Bill of Rights? That the Second Amendment only confirms a pre-existing right that every human being can lay claim to? That even if the Constitution had never existed, we would still have the right to keep and bear the arms of our choosing?

I just looked through the text of the Constitution, and it contained not one word or phrase that would give the federal government the power to restrict the ownership of property, save gold, silver, and intellectual property. Isn't it the case that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of the powers of the government? That the government can do what is spelled out in the Constitution, and nothing else???

That's my argument. Where have I gone wrong?

Oh, before I sign off, I should mention John McPhee's book The Curve of Binding Energy again. I fear that I gave a mistaken impression when I said the this book described how to build a nuclear weapon for under $2000. That's not quite correct. The Curve of Binding Energy is, in part, a series of interviews with a former Los Alamos scientist who worked for years in the United States nuclear weapons program. The book, among other things, describes how it would be possible to build a small, simple nuclear bomb (for cheap!) It is not, however, an instruction manual. For those who are interested in the science, engineering, and politics behind nuclear technology, I really cannot recommend this book highly enough. You can read more about this book here: http://www.johnmcphee.com/curve.htm

Enough for now.

Later,
Chris
Christopher II is offline  
Old May 20, 2001, 07:09 PM   #25
zot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 1999
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 566
you have to have a special license to make fireworks containing more than a 1/4 oz of black powder. what kind of
FFL or special permit to build or possess a nuke?some kid tried to make one, I can't remember the details, but he
contaminated alot of area with cessium 7 and other bad stuff
he built a particle accelerator too,mega ton bombs compared to gun ownership?I don't get the connection!
zot is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09923 seconds with 7 queries