Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]

My work, and the work of Thornwell Simons ^ | 07/12/2001 | Lazamataz

[Lazamataz]

Yet, many people own them. Are they my master?

I know of no individual people who own nuclear weapons, but I know of a few nations who do. And the rights of nations versus the rights of individuals is a completely different topic that that which I have written about above: The rights of the various and several individuals, only.

[Registered]

Call me I'll cut you a good deal, time is short, and I have several buyers

Funny, I didn't know you were Chinese...

[Chemist_Geek]

Thank you for your explanations. I will consider them.

[William Tell]

Lazamataz said: "To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

Not exactly. It also depends on where you put your nose.

[Lazamataz]

Since you concede that the nature of arms have changed since 1791, we need to pass a new constitutional amendment in order to define arms more specifically.

Maybe, or maybe we can simply use the logic and common sense of the inherent bracketing of rights as I have described them. However, if you were interested in a more precise amendement, I would recommend you use my discrimination arguments above.

The discrimination-test will allow for individual possession of laser, plasma, and other directed-energy small arms that the present interpretation of the amendment may not allow. The courts are likely -- at present -- to deny possession of laser pistols to the common man, and I find this to be an abhorrant future probability.

When lasers are outlawed, only Klingons will have lasers.

[ghostcat]

"Not at all. Since they are somewhat less discriminating, I would establish some rules as pertaining to their use: No use when your backdrop is that of a crowded area; an idiot-check to make sure you are not effing nuts, and that is about it. Kinda like Brady Bill for Machine Guns only, and the repeal of the (in my opinion unconstitutional) 1934 National Firearms Act" Rules about their use already exist Laz, it's called responsibility, if you fire in a crowded area and you hit someone who was not your intended target then you stand the chance of being tried by a jury of your peers to find out if your actions were reasonable at the time. If they weren't then you are looking at serious jail time. I don't disagree with your intent I however disagree with your method. In a truley constitutional situation it would be up to the government to prove that you are incapable of being trusted.

[William Tell]

Fury said: "This topic again? Sigh.... Set 'em straight Laz. I can't believe that someone believes the 2nd Amend. provides for the right to own AND USE nukes..."

Then you must believe that the first amendment does not protect writings on the Internet. Please describe how the language of the Constitution protects one but not the other. If one wished to justify as Constitutional the restriction of free speech on the Internet, wouldn't it be necessary to amend the Constitution?

[Lazamataz]

You must agree then that the sniper rifle used by Lon Horiuchi against Randy Weaver is not protected by the Second Amendment. How else can one explain how Weaver's wife was killed unless you suspect that Horiuchi intended her death.

I suspect that Horiuchi intended her death. Of all the discrimination available, a trained sniper is the most discriminating possible shooter.

Rogue cops don't detract from my argument, whether or not the government coddles and covers up for the criminal policeman in question.

[humbletheFiend]

One can reasonably conjecture that if they were interested in including indisriminate weapons, that the Second Amendment would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to keep and spread Contagious Diseases, shall not be infringed.

Do you think we can fairly attribute to those who were involved in the adoption of the Second Amendment an intent regarding a distinction between discriminatory and indiscriminate weapons without any clear evidence that any of them ever even thought about the distinction?

[Lazamataz]

In no way have I said that my rights trump others, that argument is a red herring

Then, since nuclear weapons are indiscriminatory, and since you invariably will violate an innocent parties right of quiet enjoyment should you detonate a nuclear weapon, then you will be forced to concede that your possession and use of a nuclear weapon is likely to violate anothers rights. And since you clearly infer you believe your rights do not trump anothers, I expect you would understand and agree with the discrimination test.

[society-by-contract]

Laz,

Where does the idea of contemporenous construction of the constitution fit in? That is the idea that if it was permissible at the time of ratification, it should be ok today. I am especially interested in Letters of Marque and Reprisal which permit private warships. A private cruiser would be quite a defensive weapon for those on the coast.

This is a good natured inquiry from a firearm owning soverign individual who supports the RKBA and JPFO.

Brady Campbell

Richmond, Virginia

[ghostcat]

"One can reasonably conjecture that if they were interested in including indisriminate weapons, that the Second Amendment would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to keep and spread Contagious Diseases, shall not be infringed"
That they didn't can also be reasonably construed as meaning that they didn't want to define what they meant by arms!! It can be further argued that they felt that the misuse of any arms would be better covered in another arena ie: Criminal law, definning criminal behavior. This would be a more reasonable interpitation in my opinion based on the way teh constitution deals with other areas

[inquest]

Maybe, or maybe we can simply use the logic and common sense of the inherent bracketing of rights as I have described them.

The only problem I have with that idea is that I don't trust the courts to make "common-sense" modifications of the law, any further than I can throw them (all of them). As it is, they're already quite happy to rearrange the law to their aesthetic sensibilities; I don't want to encourage them any further.

And like I said earlier, even if an amendment isn't passed, the states still have all the sovereign powers they need to protect our legitimate rights.

[TC Rider]

Hey, wait a minute, I am a veteran of the Nuclear National Guard. I served with the 'atomic' artillery back in the '70s. My experience with the 155 and 8" guns tells me that these weapons are anything but indiscriminate. We could usually drop a round in the box from miles away.

Regardless, since I was trained in the use of nuclear rounds with these howitzers, that should satisfy even a California liberal. In effect, the Government gave me a license.

I want my howitzer and my nuke projectiles, it's my right!

BTW, nice article

[Lazamataz]

To expect them to think about the absurd assertion that biological agent possession and use being a protected right is silly, of course. These sort of thoughts are dismissed out-of-hand in any sane persons mind.

So the only test that they intended indiscriminate weapons to be included would be the clause in the second amendment that specifically protected the right of the people to keep and spread contagious diseases -- which, as I have pointed out, is the only indiscriminate WMD available to the founders at that time.

Absent that clause, I reasonably assume they had no intent to INCLUDE the possession and use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

[Lazamataz]

The only problem I have with that idea is that I don't trust the courts to make "common-sense" modifications of the law

Neither do I, so I am satisfied with the status quo and the analysis I have done, with an eye towards perhaps freeing up the restrictions on fully automatic guns somewhat for civilian ownership, based on my discrimination argument.

[Lazamataz]

Where does the idea of contemporenous construction of the constitution fit in? That is the idea that if it was permissible at the time of ratification, it should be ok today. I am especially interested in Letters of Marque and Reprisal which permit private warships.

Private warships fire upon other aggressive or hostile warships in an area where collateral damage is highly unlikely.

Private warships satisified the discrimination test well, in those open seas.

[Eagle Eye]

Not being an historian, forgive my shallow understanding of the issue.The Constitution authorizes letters of marque which authorized/commissionied privately owned battleships to engage the enemy on behalf of the US. Obviously privately owned ships cannot be commissioned if they do not exist, yet the Second Amenment does not specifically address ships as arms.

What prevents Ross Perot or Steve Forbes from owning a private battleship? What prevents them from having NBC capabilities on that ship? Wouldn't that fall under private ownership? Since nothing prevents 'indescriminate' use of HE shells, why draw the disntinction for NBC?

[ghostcat]

"And since you clearly infer you believe your rights do not trump anothers, I expect you would understand and agree with the discrimination test."

I do not automatically have to agree with the discrimination test, that is a false choice, it is not an either or arguement. I believe that the standard was set a long time ago, and that standard is was the USE reasonable, not wheter the ownership is resonable.

[ghostcat]

BTW, great discussion.