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]

This was written in response to ConsistentLibertarian's (or as I like to call him, InconsistentLiberal) repeated use of this particular straw man argument.

His response to me is that he rejects one of the premises on which this argument is based. To quote him:

But since you make an argument based on a premise I don't accept, I need you to say something more about why I should accept that premise. [To wit, ] You're making inferences about the Framers intent based on texts which are not part of the constitution. I need you to say something more about why those inferences matter. For me, the text is all that matters.

My response to him is that we can address this premise right now. This individual (who I suspect is a disruptor, but that is an ad hominum observation and in no way detracts or supports my argument) has stated they reject the premise that one can infer meaning and intended results in the Constitution by examining the writings, speeches, and actions of the persons who wrote it. While this seems like an obvious premise to put forth, I am willing to take him through the logic process point by point, since it is a compound premise and is subject to the possible fallacy of the Complex Question. I will demonstrate it is not.

So therefore, ConsistentLibertarian:

1) Agree or disagree: A person can have a political viewpoint.

[Lazamataz]

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

[serinde]

Very nice discussion of this topic. Thanks for posting it.

[sailor4321]

Interesting argument. Please be on notice that nuclear weapons are not allowed on our local shooting range; violators will be ejected and/or suspended for up to 60 days.

Thank you

Rangemaster

[Chemist_Geek]

Just out of curiousity, and immediately before going out to lunch, I'd like to ask you to consider the following question. Thank you for considering my inquiry.

How will a land mine or booby trap, emplaced upon my own property, "violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property"? Consider that I live alone and have no pets, and also that the property is prominently posted "No Tresspasing".

[Lazamataz]

How will a land mine or booby trap, emplaced upon my own property, "violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property"? Consider that I live alone and have no pets, and also that the property is prominently posted "No Tresspasing".

Human intervention is required in order for any weapon to be considered 'discriminating', since the discrimination must come from someone with the capability to make that discriminative decision. Therefore -- since these two weapons lack human intervention -- discrimination is impossible and they fall into the final catagory of weaponry.

[45Auto]

Very nice analysis. Its reasoning is lost, however, on those who blindly seek to disarm and then enslave the citizenry. No amount of logical discourse, historical obeservation, or simple rational use of the English language will dissuade them from their "beliefs". The crux of the gun argument comes to down to who will prevail in the long run, and what level of force will be required to win: those who love liberty, or those who simply have no faith in the basic goodness of humanity,those who think that the law functions because people are afraid of the consequences of breaking those laws, or those who see the law as an extension of what good people view as "right". I have had the latter argument with law school graduates who only see the law as an instrument of force; it is those same people who really think that mankind must be "controlled" or else all havoc will out. Those people are simply what I call The Enemies of Freedom; they will never stop nor will they ever admit that the 2nd means that citizens of the US have what is supposed to be an unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Before this arugument is settled, there are going to be some very ugly times in America. God help the Republic.

[in_troth]

How will a land mine or booby trap, emplaced upon my own property, "violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property"?

Well, suppose the police or fire rescue had to come help you, and accidentally got blowed up real good?

[Lazamataz]

Well, suppose the police or fire rescue had to come help you, and accidentally got blowed up real good?

Good point, but it is a subset of the requirement that human intervention is needed for a weapon to be considered 'discriminating'.

[jimkress]

they reject the premise

Your opponent's wife probably rejects the premise of the law of gravity. That still doesn't keep her breasts from sagging to the floor ...

[humbletheFiend]

I think that you've drawn a very impressive distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. Very nicely done.

Is there any evidence that this distinction was relevant to or considered by any of the persons involved in the adoption of the Second Amendment?

[Jzen]

I'll tell you why. I can't afford one or else i'd own one. That way I could just rig it up to the door so when someone breaks into my house it goes off.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

I disagree. As far as I am concerned, I can own nuclear weapons. Since all men are equal before God and the law, no man is my master. If man or group is entitled to own nuclear weapons, then I am. As far as the weapon being discriminating, a nuclear weapon can be sufficiently discriminating if it is directed at a tyrannical government which is also armed with nukes. (Think Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Waco, etc.)

[inquest]

Well, until your friend shows up, I just want to say that I think I agree with him (bearing in mind that the only thing I know about his position is what you've told us right here). I agree that the first thing we need to look at when determining the meaning of any law is the text itself, because the whole reason for writing a law down was so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel by wondering what it was they "intended" to say (the ol' hanging-chad syndrome). If the text seems inconclusive despite all our efforts, then it would be appropriate to inquire as to the intentions of the authors.

[Lazamataz]

I disagree. As far as I am concerned, I can own nuclear weapons. Since all men are equal before God and the law, no man is my master. If man or group is entitled to own nuclear weapons, then I am. As far as the weapon being discriminating, a nuclear weapon can be sufficiently discriminating if it is directed at a tyrannical government which is also armed with nukes. (Think Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Waco, etc.)

Oh, have you invented a new nuclear weapon that causes people who are aggressing against you to be vaporized, while only gently nudging people who are innocent and happen to be in the blast radius?

Because otherwise, I am seeing you assert that your right of self-protection triumphs other people's right of self-protection. I see you asserting that you are 'more equal' than others.

[Chemist_Geek]

Therefore -- since these two weapons lack human intervention -- discrimination is impossible and they fall into the final catagory of weaponry.

Human intervention was performed during the siting and emplacement. The person who chose the sites for the mines and traps (presumably) made decisions on where to emplace them with an eye towards self-defense, and didn't just randomly scatter them over the landscaping.

[Lazamataz]

Well, until your friend shows up, I just want to say that I think I agree with him (bearing in mind that the only thing I know about his position is what you've told us right here). I agree that the first thing we need to look at when determining the meaning of any law is the text itself, because the whole reason for writing a law down was so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel by wondering what it was they "intended" to say (the ol' hanging-chad syndrome). If the text seems inconclusive despite all our efforts, then it would be appropriate to inquire as to the intentions of the authors.

Well, we can rely on the text to a reasonably large degree. There was at least one weapon of mass destruction (e.g., an indiscriminate weapon) in existence in the time of the founders; the introduction of biological agents against a populace. I am not seeing mention of the keeping and bearing of smallpox in the Second Amendment anywhere.

[ghostcat]

While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating. It is also a fact that they did not prohibit any type of weapon , even though non discriminating weapons did exist at that time Ie: trap guns, spring guns, canons w/ grape,chain and other types of loose shot.
A better argument would be that even though it is constitutional to own such weapons, society can have a compelling and overiding reason to ban such weapons, ie based on the magnatude of the damage inflicted. your arguments are very weak when it comes to machine guns,Machine pistols,Small explosive device,Satchel charge, Antitank rocket, Booby traps, land mines, all of these are currently used as standard weapons of war and as such should clearly allowed under the constitution. The deciding factor on using any of these weapons is still the same as to when we use any deadly weapon, was it a reasonable use?

[Registered]

Good post Laz. But I'm still in the market for a W88.

[inquest]

As for what the Constitution's position on this is, I have some observations to make:

1. The powers of the federal government are limited to only what is positively given to it. Hence, the second amendment is largely unnecessary (which is why it wasn't part of the original Constitution - not because the Founders didn't think that people had a right to arm themselves). So the feds may not even regulate nuclear weapons ownership, because they were never given that power to begin with.

2. Your arguments regarding the discriminatory capabilities of various weapons make plenty of sense, but they have little or no bearing on what the second amendment says (see my #14). If we want the law to make such distinctions (which weren't a concern in 1791), then we'd have to pass another constitutional amendment.

3. The fact that the feds don't have the direct power to regulate nuclear weapons doesn't mean that they can't be regulated: the states still retain that power. Some might object that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights against state governments. I realize that the federal courts have ruled that it does, as they're much more comfortable with restricting the states than restricting the feds, but it should be noted that they didn't start ruling that way until several decades after the amendment was passed. Privileges and immunities don't seem to be the same thing as rights.