From pocket knife to A-bomb, what's considered "bearing arms"?

[ChickenHawk]

The citizens of Mass. in 1774-1775 organized and purchased and made both gunpowder, stored in barrels, and cannon, ranging from 2 pounders to 6 and 12 pounders. Clearly you do not have to be able "lift" the arms to be able to bear or own them.

And think, would the ATF allow you to have a 12 pounder, of the same manufacture as 1775, in your front yard nowadays? or store the barrels of powder in your barn...

Just because people owned them doesn't mean that it's a right. Lots of people legally own Chia Pets but that doesn't prove it's a right. Of course I don't see why the government should restrict the ownership of cannons.

As far as I know cannons and gun powder are still legal under federal law.

 

[NMCB3]

Just because people owned them doesn't mean that it's a right. Lots of people legally own Chia Pets but that doesn't prove it's a right. Of course I don't see why the government should restrict the ownership of cannons.

As far as I know cannons and gun powder are still legal under federal law.

Its your right as a human being to own any property you wish, its not your right to use that property in a way that violates the rights of others.

 

[SeanEdwards]

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was written to protect the operational capability of the people to act as militia in an emergency. Therefore, it follows that the arms permitted to the people should be comparable in effectiveness to whatever small arms are routinely issued to military personnel. That way the militia can theoretically at least mount an effective defense.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Its your right as a human being to own any property you wish, its not your right to use that property in a way that violates the rights of others.

I tend to agree, but I was referring to explicit Constitutional rights. Unfortunately the courts haven't interpreted the 9th amendment as broadly as they interpret the commerce clause or the general welfare clause.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I know we are guaranteed the right to own a "gun" via the 2nd Amendment, but what about automatics, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, tanks.........or A-bombs? At some point don't you have to say to Joe sixpack, "no, you can't build your own A-bomb for self defense?"

Food for thought....

>> what about automatics, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, tanks.........or A-bombs? At some point don't you have to say to Joe sixpack, "no, you can't build your own A-bomb for self defense?"

>> cannons and gun powder

STATE laws very, but on a federal level: (note – DHS, CPSC, Justice, etc. are hard at work stripping away your rights to own things and materials – so this may not be current in some respects).

automatics ie: machine guns – legal, importation or sale of ones manufactured past a certain data to civilians is illegal, so they are pricey! That said, background check, paperwork, $200 transfer tax a long wait and it's yours.

Note: you have to tell BATF where the gun lives and notify them in advance if you transport it across state lines. They have the authority to verify this...

Related – hand crank Gatling guns are legal to own and last I heard had no paperwork other that that for a normal rifle. Electric Gatling guns are also legal but will attract a great deal more scrutiny. Also, who can afford to shoot one???

Grenades: ie: destructive device – as above. - yes, grenade = $10, tax = $200

flamethrower – oddly not regulated, AFAICT

bazookas – tube and every round as above. - $200, etc.

Tanks – perfectly legal to own and some people collect and restore them. The main gun seems to be another issue and while the barrel is always left, I believe it's always plugged.

Cannons – smooth bore, black powder – perfectly legal to own. No Paperwork.

Howitzers and more modern field artillery that uses modern propellants, has rifled barrels and locking breaches – these seem more controlled and may be banned.

Powder storage – for modern powders there are definitely limits on how much you can store, without building a magazine that requires inspection and permitting – so far away from inhabited buildings, etc. For black powder – I don't know.

A-Bombs – amazingly, I agree that the government should restrict ownership. Not very Libertarian of me – eh?

Fortunately, (or not – depending on your perspective), Congress and the regulatory agencies mostly ignore the above items beyond current restrictions. As to automatic weapons – I suspect that's because of the fiction they try to impress on the sheeple that “Assault Weapons”(sic) (which are banned based on if they “look evil” or if their design is based on a military design) are machine guns. I suspect they are being largely left alone for several reasons – for one, people that pay these prices, go through the paperwork and background checks are not generally ones that will mis-use the items. (Just like CCW permit holders), and secondly – it's a rather expensive hobby – and I don't think Congress wants to piss off their more well off political contributors and country club buddies...

No – BATFE, CPSC, DEA, etc. seem more focused on trying to ban model rocket motors (hi BSA), common biological reagents (hi homeschoolers and science fair participants), access to chemicals, removing contents listings from household and AG chemicals, and trying to kill the amateur pyrotechnics field, etc.

Congress is also trying to push through and make permanent the Assault Weapons(sic) ban again. This time the list of weapons has been massively expanded to include 90% of the firearms you would find at any shooting range.

Oh BTW – CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) those same wondrous folks that drove many chemistry set companies out of business and made current sets totally lame now has their very own SWAT team! - Gosh, are we having fun yet? Another random factiod – FEMA, yes the disaster management people, run a sniper school... that actually makes sense, because 10% of FEMA (the part they talk about) does disaster management, while 90% focuses on CoG – Continuity of Government.


Some things to be aware of:

Fireworks / Chemicals:
http://www.cannonfuse.com/store/pc/viewContent.asp?idpage=1

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry.html


1st amendment rights / what is public vs private space / what's legal in the privacy of your own bedroom. You may not like this industry, but they are a primary point of attack on our civil rights. Decisions effecting them, trickle down and effect us all:
http://www.defendourporn.org/?cat=8

Related – a few weeks ago more legislation “to protect the children” was passed by Congress. These bills ALLWAYS have horrible repercussions for civil rights. One of them apparently has some sort of reporting requirements for Internet sites/bbs's about reporting information on their members / users to the Federal gvmt. This would seem to be a direct attack on the open Internet and another step closer to a police state.

-t

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

The only way for the federal government to legally infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is for it to do so through an amendment to the Constitution. Arms is a synonym for weapons. This includes nuclear weapons. The Constitution does not say "to keep and bear arms safely".

Obviously, the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a damn good one. In a world full of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons all with the singular purpose to wipe out masses of people, it might be beneficial to re-categorize such weapons (with some designation besides the overused-"Weapons of Mass Destruction").

But let's think critically here. What would a law banning the possession of such weapons actually accomplish? Anyone with the wild hairs to have such devices would probably have them anyway. If their negligence or malice caused innocent casualties and property damage there are already laws in place to exact penalties and restitution. How many people do you think would obey a law against owning nuclear weapons based solely on it being a law?

 

[Pericles]

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was written to protect the operational capability of the people to act as militia in an emergency. Therefore, it follows that the arms permitted to the people should be comparable in effectiveness to whatever small arms are routinely issued to military personnel. That way the militia can theoretically at least mount an effective defense.

The 2nd amendment was written to protect the operational capability of the people to act as militia. Therefore, it follows that the arms used by the people should be comparable in effectiveness to whatever arms are used by military personnel. That way the militia can at least mount an effective defense.

Made some "improvements". Us ex- active duty guys just need the tools, we know how to use them at the appropriate time.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

morning blimp....

-t

 

[Knightskye]

Amendments are so 18th century. It's a lot easier just to appoint a judge.

Since when have amendments in the Bill of Rights been overturned?

Roe v. Wade isn't in the Constitution.

 

[Truth Warrior]

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[tremendoustie]

I do think owning A-bombs and other "WMDs" should be illegal, if a constitutional amendment is needed, so be it. And I do think it would matter -- it might not deter anyone, but say you figured out somehow that someone was building such a bomb -- radiation detectors or however. If it were legal, one would have no recourse but to allow them to finish, and to blow up the city.

The second amendment is for the defense of the people against government. A-bombs are far to widespread in their damage to be useful for that purpose -- likewise biological and some chemical weapons. Howitzers, sure. Enormous bombs and WMDs, no.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

I do think owning A-bombs and other "WMDs" should be illegal, if a constitutional amendment is needed, so be it. And I do think it would matter -- it might not deter anyone, but say you figured out somehow that someone was building such a bomb -- radiation detectors or however. If it were legal, one would have no recourse but to allow them to finish, and to blow up the city.

The second amendment is for the defense of the people against government. A-bombs are far to widespread in their damage to be useful for that purpose -- likewise biological and some chemical weapons. Howitzers, sure. Enormous bombs and WMDs, no.

Oh, a Constitutional Amendment is definitely needed to make any sort of arms illegal. As it stands, all arms are legal. Any subsequent law that conflicts with the 2nd amendment is non-law and therefore null and void. Let's try to go by the book on this stuff. Amend it or live with it, but the worst thing you can do is ignore it.

 

[crusader]

anyone who thinks that an A-bomb should be guaranteed as "arms" under the second amendment is a fucking retard.

There are three types of thinking when it comes to interpretation of writing:
1) those that wish to re-interpret based on the wording and their own definition.
2) those that try to apply an interpretation to current "times"
3) those that try to understand what the fundamental point was.

a) Saying that an A-bomb should be guaranteed is taking option 1. YOU ARE WRONG
b) Saying that arms were only used in olden times and therefore no arms are guaranteed is taking option 2. YOU ARE WRONG
c) Saying that the intent of the second amendment was to prevent the government from encroaching on its citizens is option 3. CORRECT. Would an A-bomb be useful in preventing the government from encroaching on its citizens? NO, not even close. So STFU and let this thread die already. Should our own government have an A-bomb? NO, it shouldn't, Nobody should.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Kinda like burning down the barn, just to get rid of the rats.<IMHO> ​

 

[SWATH]

While I would argue an A-bomb is not an "arm" in the conventional sense it still begs the question. If an individual does not have the right to own an A-bomb, how is it then that individuals can delegate this power to the government? If you make the argument that individuals do not have this right, then you must also make the argument that no collection of individuals, i.e. government, has this right either.

 

[Truth Warrior]

While I would argue an A-bomb is not an "arm" in the conventional sense it still begs the question. If an individual does not have the right to own an A-bomb, how is it then that individuals can delegate this power to the government? If you make the argument that individuals do not have this right, then you must also make the argument that no collection of individuals, i.e. government, has this right either.

Agreed and granted. Rights are individual, not collective and cumulative.<IMHO>

 

[Truth Warrior]

How about a "Metal Storm"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm

36 Barrel Prototype

Metal Storm has created a 36 barreled stacked projectile machine gun, boasting the highest rate of fire in the world. This weapons system has a firing rate capability of slightly more than one million rounds per minute. However, the recoil is so great that it cannot be practically mounted on any kind of vehicle, and no device has yet been proposed to reload the gun automatically.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Since when have amendments in the Bill of Rights been overturned?

Roe v. Wade isn't in the Constitution.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at.

 

[Expatriate]

While I would argue an A-bomb is not an "arm" in the conventional sense it still begs the question. If an individual does not have the right to own an A-bomb, how is it then that individuals can delegate this power to the government? If you make the argument that individuals do not have this right, then you must also make the argument that no collection of individuals, i.e. government, has this right either.

Interesting point.

I will repeat what I said before:

I would say the spirit of the 2nd Amendment entitles you to any arms that can be kept without a clear and present danger to your neighbors, thereby infringing upon their rights. (if you want to keep 500 pound bombs, you'd have to have a minimum blast area around the storage facility without innocent bystanders)

I'm sure in the days of the Founders none of them would have approved of their neighbor storing several tons of gunpowder twenty feet from their front door. But back then people generally lived farther apart as well.

If you want nuclear weapons, well there is a fallout issue as well as the initial blast radius, so you'd just about have to have your own continent in order to store them safely without infringing on your neighbor's rights. But our government doesn't exactly do that do they? A number of nuclear weapons sites are located near population centers.

I suppose the fundamental question is: Who is more trustworthy, individuals or governments? Since governments are controlled by multiple individuals, I think the answer is pretty obvious. Take a look at the Federalist Papers (A collection of writings by the Founders which explains the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments).

 

[SimpleName]

As someone said, I believe the line should be drawn when the simple act of having the weapon could immediately harm your neighbors. A small atom bomb could easily wipe out the neighborhood if mishandled in even the slightest of ways. The same with the less dangerous, but still haunting missile malfunctions. As long as the device or the ammunition put into it can't blow up your neighbors' home, it would only make sense that you should have a right to own such things.