Arms

No, this thread is not about Tasvir's quest to become a whole person.

With the recent Aurora shootings, the whole Second Amendment debate has been resurrected. I honestly don't know a hell of a lot about the history of this debate so I've been doing some online research. Of particular note, I was interested in whether the term "arms" had ever been defined.

In my searches, I came across this very interesting artcile. I won't post it in its entirety but it's really worth a read.

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

Essentially, the author argues that there is no limit on the term "arms", so the right to own nuclear weapons and 40-watt phased plasmas rifles should be constitutionally-protected. The author further argues that, over the last 200 years, case law and supreme court judgements have refined interpretations of the Bill of Rights to put reasonable restrictions on things like the First Amendment (i.e., slander, libel, inciting riots, etc.)

He definitely comes out on the side of pro-gun ownership but believes that, like other constitutional refinements, the time has come for a serious discussion as to what "arms" really means:

I think he goes a bit far by saying that surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank weapons are okay, but all in all I was impressed by the article and his line of reasoning.

I'm sure it's been pointed out ad nauseum, but the Founding Fathers (praise be thy name) could not have envisioned the kind of destructive weapons we have in the 21st century.

Well, the point is to have arms equal to common contemporary soldiers so that you can usefully supplement them (or substitute for them)* to defend your home soil. 19th century arms are therefore invalid.

*Yeah, I know the boat has sailed on being able to oppose them when they're being used by a tyrannical gov't to oppress us.

Well, we're trying to be reasonable.

You can have all the M-16s you want but you'll never have "arms equal to common contemporary soldiers" in the 21st century unless you have airplanes, tanks, and drones. In 1790 everyone had muskets and horses. No one has M-16s and tanks.

Sorry. That's just the facts.

You're being an idiot, and completely misunderstood the term, probably on purpose.
How many times do we have to go over this?

Here are some common contemporary soldiers and their arms:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4427364458_c84e84a663_o.jpg
Where don you see airplanes, tanks, and drones?

You're wrong. So is your list.

According to the article, there have been court rulings in the past that included heavy ordnance in the definition of "arms".

How would you, as a private citizen, defend yourself against a soldier with the ability to remotely launch a nuclear strike on your home soil? Just asking.

This.

The American constitution quite clearly establishes a right for people to own weapons, and in the minds of the people in charge at the time it obviously meant weapons that could counter government power.

That said, anyone who advocates that private citizens should be able to own missile launching remote controlled drones able to take out your enemies from thousands of miles away with no risk to yourself is fucking insane.

It shows the folly of trying to think the rulers of a largely agrarian 18th century society might have given all the best answers on how to deal with the problems faced by a 21st century space-faring one.

I don't understand how your mind works.

Leftists: "You can never take Iraq. The citizenry will not allow it. They will fight."
Leftists: "You can never defend yourselves. The government will not allow it. They will fight."

What "soldier" has that ability?

No kidding. That requires a large unit infrastructure. Further, cost is a limiting factor.

Thanks for making my point for me, chuckles.

And I know what your next question is going to be, so let me just stop you there and say that I forgot the puppets at home today so I won't be able to explain it to you in terms you'd understand.

Machete. Can't launch a nuke if you don't have a hand to press the button.

I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald would disagree with you.

British Aircraft Carrier For Sale On Auction Site!

I understand what you're saying. You're the one not taking it to the logical conclusion.

I'll make it simple: If we didn't use nukes on Afghanistan, we would never use them on our own people.

Never say never. The truth is that Afghanistan never pushed us to the point of wanting to use them, nor did they pose a threat to the power structure of the people with their finger on the trigger.

If that ever changes, whether it's Afghanistan or 'the people', don't hedge your bets. There's no animal more dangerous than a cornered one or a man who thinks he has nothing left to lose.

Who was that addressed to?

Which "soldiers" in the Mujahadeen in the 1980s had nuclear weapons when they drove the Soviet Army out of their country?

There's a picture floating around that's even cooler (I'm sure MAOHS will post it soon) but here's the gist (shamelessly copied from here):

So yeah, this has been done plenty of times before...

Here's how the math works.

One anonymous snapper-head on some other board says something, then, ALL liberals think it.

Another separate anonymous snapper-head on another board says something that contradicts the first thing, then, ALL liberals also think that contradictory thing.

Ergo, all liberals think in contradiction.

See?
...it's easier if you don't think about it too much....

This is tiresome to repeat, but arms (in the context of the Second Amendment) means small arms (i.e., rifles, pistols, shotguns). Weapons wieldable by a single individual.

In a broader sense, I would say that individuals have the right to own ANY arm suitable for usage by a militia, but, outside the category of small arms, the government can impose greater regulatory requirements.

For instance, you might think it would be dangerous to let an individual own a hand grenade. But LOTS of individuals own dynamite, primacord, etc. for demolition purposes. You might think it would be dangerous to let an individual own a machine gun. But MANY private companies produce them and there are companies that stockpile them for use in the movie industry.

Should one be allowed to own a tank? Sure, and lots of people do. The big issue is what to do about the big gun the tank has. What problem do you have with it if the gun is de-milled (modified in such a way that it cannot be made to fire)? Or, if the person passes the right checks, expresses some legitimate need, has the proper insurance, can operate in the proper environment, etc., what's the big deal about having an operable gun?

If you don't trust a properly vetted private individual to own something, why would you let an unvetted government employee operate it? That is, if a 50-year-old man pays $250,000 for a tank, secures suitable land to use the gun, complies with all local regulations, obtains the necessary insurance, and is given a thorough background check, why would he be LESS reliable than a 22-year-old enlisted man operating the same equipment?

Does all this mean a person should be able to own a nuclear weapon? Or nerve gas? I'd say the regulatory requirements there would be sooooooooooo high, that no individual could possibly meet them. You'd have to be in the business of supplying those things to the state to have nominal "ownership" over them, and really not even that as you would be very tightly constrained on what you could do with them. (Don't know about nerve gas, but American nuclear weapons are produced by a non-profit corporation whose sole customer is the U.S. government.)

Clearly, the "leftists" are utterly misguided in their unrealistic worldview. That's why Iraq worked out fine, and the US government is held at the mercy of its citizens' benevolence.

Oh, wait.

So, you don't really trust these people, you just have no other choice?

Not at all. Read the article in my OP. It's quite interesting and points out that, based on case law and documents from the founding fathers, "arms" doesn't just mean small arms.