I Support the Second Amendment…But

[Silverado]

So it's alright to let Kim Jong Il and amajinadad have nukes, but not your neightbor? I fail to see the rational behind this.

Please point out where I said that it's OK to let ruthless dictators have nukes. I'm not Ron Paul.

Actually, come to think of it, a dictator 10,000 miles away with a nuke and no delivery system is probably less of a threat to me than the mosque/church/temple down the street owning one.

 

[eric001]

Put most simply, it's none of your, my, or his d*** business what any of the others have, because if we allow one infringement, the incrementalist tendency is that we then are going to find ourselves limited to fists and harsh language.



Blessings,
Bill

Bill, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said--but I would submit that once that particular ball gets rolling, our fists would have to be licensed, and harsh language would undoubtedly be more than sufficient to incarcerate us for however long the BG government wanted to keep us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Roland and lashicon only make a good point in a completely abstract sense, regarding freedom and your fellow man. They do not make ANY sense with regards to reality, which would soon see vaporized American cities if any random nutjob with enough cash and fervor for his "god" had such capability.

It is utterly ridiculous to think that an argument for private possession of nuclear weapons is somehow protected by the second amendment. First of all, and most obviously, the founding fathers did not take into consideration weapons that destroy entire cities with the flick of a switch, because no such thing existed at the time.

Secondly, the free availability of such weapons would inevitably result in their acquisition and use by those who would use them against our nation, enemies from within or beyond our borders. Even one nuclear detonation on US soil would lead to the very Constitution that you love to being nothing but a footnote in history. One only needs to look at the response to 9/11 (Patriot Act, strip searches at airports, people demanding security in exchange for freedom) to imagine what kind of a response would occur with the use of a nuclear weapon.

I don't buy "slippery slope" arguments, either. After years of NO carrying of handguns allowed in many states in the US, the exact reverse is true now. Seems the "slippery slope" wasn't as slippery as some believed. I hardly equate the regulation of nuclear weapons to an end result of more gun control. If that's what you are suggesting, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Sorry.

Some regulation of certain things is necessary in a governed society. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the reality of human nature.

Necessary? Do you really want to use that one? I've used this quote so often, I can type it without having to look up the text: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt

The slippery slope is still very slippery. It so happens that in the last 25 years, we've gained a lot of ground. (I should know; I've been updating the graphic showing no-issue to may-issue to shall-issue to Constitutional Carry for the last few years.) That said, though, we've made no inroads at all in CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, or RI, and we may well be but one treaty away from our government giving away our ability to lawfully exercise the RKBA at all. We are already heavily restricted in re: NFA stuff... of course, being a LEO, you wouldn't feel that one. You still get to play with the fun toys and even get paid to do it. (I may be mistaken on that point, but I seem to recall you making comment about being a LEO. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology.) Regardless, though, regulation of arms is regulation of arms. Look at CA. After Stockton, they started their own initiatives: Gun registration of all of those "scary" guns, with the assurance that the registry would only be used to ensure that only the good people had them. Lo and behold, a few years later, those guns were outlawed and that registry was used to confiscate the very guns they originally said would not be. They're talking about (or passed, I forget) .50 cal. bans, they've passed a lead ammo ban. Go to the other side of the country and you'll find other, similar governmental creep. JHPs are unlawful in NJ, unless of course, you wear a badge. We've been conditioned over the years nationwide to accept that if someone has a "permit" or a "license", then they're OK to carry, but not otherwise. Many of us here on INGO have rejected that paradigm, but it's still pervasive through society.

Four of those 27 words apply; the last four... "shall not be infringed." They do not make equivocation. They have no exceptions. If you want to make the argument about "well, the Founders couldn't have known about...", let me make that simple, too: Who do you think owned the warships and cannon that allowed us to forge a country? Here's a hint: It wasn't a three-letter government agency! It was private citizens, allowing their personal property to be used and possibly destroyed, and with little hope of recompense if it was, by other citizens, citizen-soldiers, with the goal of creating a country. Cannon could destroy (not vaporize, true) a city in short order.

Is it likely that those weapons would be misused? Yes, sadly, that is indeed likely. This does NOT justify the restriction of those who would not because of those who would, any more than the actions of a criminal are justification for restricting honest citizens' RKBA. Your and my rights are not (or should not be) subject to restriction for acts over which we have no control and have not performed ourselves.

Call me an idealist. Fine, I don't care. I have been called far worse and I'm in hell of good company with the ideals I hold. Our Founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to the goals and ideals I'm discussing and embracing here. They knew the realities of human nature, and still, this is what they forged for us. I am of the belief we owe them no less.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

A LONG time ago, I was told that "Anything that precedes the word 'but' is a lie"...

I don't always lie about what I ate at Burger King, but when I do,
I make it a whopper.

Stay Thirsty My Friends*




*(because they still won't let you refill your McDonalds cup at Burger King.)

-1 Burger King

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I support the 2nd amendment but the constitution does not give "the people" the right to keep and bear arms. The right to self defense is a Natural Right that the constitution merely recognizes and states plainly so that the government does not get confused that this point is not negotiable.

That's the only "but" I've got regarding the 2nd amendment.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Regarding the civilian ownership of nuclear devices, I would like to make a proposal:

I submit as fact that the government of The United States Of America possesses nuclear weapons

I submit that the government of the USA is nothing more than an expression of the will of the citizenry of the USA.

I believe that the citizenry has the right to be be as armed as the government which represents those citizens.

I propose that we calculate the number of nuclear weapons owned by the US government and divide that number by the total citizenry of the US. That will give us a fraction with a numerator representing a number of nukes and a denominator representing the number of citizens required to own that number of nukes.

If, for example, there is 1 nuke for every 25,000 citizens, then I feel it is reasonable for 25,000 citizens to collectively privately own a nuke (since they theoretically already fractionally own a nuke held by the federal government through fractional ownership of the government). If there is one nuke for every 2,000 citizens, then if you get 2,000 citizens to form a group of some type (corporation for instance), then that "collective entity"/corp can own a nuke.

I would apply the same principles for all weapons of mass destruction. If our government is so armed to the teeth that this proposal would lead to holocaust, then we are already courting holocaust through the electorate.

If you can't trust the citizenry with the weaponry, then how can you trust them to choose the people in charge of the weaponry? If you don't want 2,000 people to be able to form a corp and buy a tac nuke, then reduce the stockpile until it would take 250,000. If you can get 250,000 people together to buy a nuke, then you're a political force private nuke or no private nuke.

 

[Silverado]

Necessary? Do you really want to use that one? I've used this quote so often, I can type it without having to look up the text: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt

The slippery slope is still very slippery. It so happens that in the last 25 years, we've gained a lot of ground. (I should know; I've been updating the graphic showing no-issue to may-issue to shall-issue to Constitutional Carry for the last few years.) That said, though, we've made no inroads at all in CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, or RI, and we may well be but one treaty away from our government giving away our ability to lawfully exercise the RKBA at all. We are already heavily restricted in re: NFA stuff... of course, being a LEO, you wouldn't feel that one. You still get to play with the fun toys and even get paid to do it. (I may be mistaken on that point, but I seem to recall you making comment about being a LEO. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology.) Regardless, though, regulation of arms is regulation of arms. Look at CA. After Stockton, they started their own initiatives: Gun registration of all of those "scary" guns, with the assurance that the registry would only be used to ensure that only the good people had them. Lo and behold, a few years later, those guns were outlawed and that registry was used to confiscate the very guns they originally said would not be. They're talking about (or passed, I forget) .50 cal. bans, they've passed a lead ammo ban. Go to the other side of the country and you'll find other, similar governmental creep. JHPs are unlawful in NJ, unless of course, you wear a badge. We've been conditioned over the years nationwide to accept that if someone has a "permit" or a "license", then they're OK to carry, but not otherwise. Many of us here on INGO have rejected that paradigm, but it's still pervasive through society.

Four of those 27 words apply; the last four... "shall not be infringed." They do not make equivocation. They have no exceptions. If you want to make the argument about "well, the Founders couldn't have known about...", let me make that simple, too: Who do you think owned the warships and cannon that allowed us to forge a country? Here's a hint: It wasn't a three-letter government agency! It was private citizens, allowing their personal property to be used and possibly destroyed, and with little hope of recompense if it was, by other citizens, citizen-soldiers, with the goal of creating a country. Cannon could destroy (not vaporize, true) a city in short order.

Is it likely that those weapons would be misused? Yes, sadly, that is indeed likely. This does NOT justify the restriction of those who would not because of those who would, any more than the actions of a criminal are justification for restricting honest citizens' RKBA. Your and my rights are not (or should not be) subject to restriction for acts over which we have no control and have not performed ourselves.

Call me an idealist. Fine, I don't care. I have been called far worse and I'm in hell of good company with the ideals I hold. Our Founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to the goals and ideals I'm discussing and embracing here. They knew the realities of human nature, and still, this is what they forged for us. I am of the belief we owe them no less.

Blessings,
Bill

First of all, I'm not an LEO. I work in the criminal justice field, but not in any enforcement capacity. I have friends that are LEO's, but that is beside the point.

Just because "necessity" is the plea of tyrants, does not mean that there is no such thing as legitimate necessity with regards to the regulation of certain things. Are you honestly trying to say that the regulation of the possession of nuclear weapons is tyrannical? This is ludicrous to me. We are not talking about weapons kept for self defense, or even defense against government oppression. Your comparison to cannons doesn't even deserve argument. A few cannons owned by an individual, vs. a nuclear weapon. Really?

I don't see any prohibitions in the Bill of Rights against slander, libel, or religions that practice animal or human sacrifice. Do we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, or do we not? The 1st amendment does not end with "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody." Are the other amendments absolute, or just the 2nd? (I'm pretending, for the sake of argument, that the 2nd would even apply to nuclear weapons. I feel that such an argument is ridiculous on its face.)

And if the Bill of Rights is not subject to interpretation and application to new developments and issues, then why did the founding fathers even bother to establish a judicial branch to "interpret the law," or a process by which the Constitution could be amended or even changed with the convening of a convention? Why did they even bother to establish a government, except with the express intention to govern, however well?

Arguing that restrictions on nuclear weapons is a "slippery slope" to gun control is like saying that laws against child molesting will inevitably lead to the banning of intercourse between anyone. It's simply ridiculous.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, as I doubt that you or anyone else seriously knows how the founding fathers would have felt about nuclear weapons. Except that I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have let blacks or women own them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

[strike]I don't have time right now to compose a full reply to this, Silverado, but I'll come back to it later. For now, I'll say that [/strike]nuclear weapons are terrible things that IMHO no one should own, but I don't get to make that decision. They exist, and the Founders' intent was that the People be at least as well-armed as their government. Their reasoning was sound: there is nothing about governmental power that confers some magical ability to properly handle certain technologies.

My position is less that "everyone should have a nuke" - hell, there are people on this planet that i don't think should have the right to breathe and people on this board that I wouldn't trust with a cap gun, but it's not my place to deny them their rights- and more that it is not the place of some construct of our people to define and control the mere possession of an item. You, OTOH, seem comfortable with the idea of using the power and force of government to enforce your will that none have a technology you fear on others. These clowns can't seem to grasp the simple concept that you don't spend more money than you have, a concept even a five-year-old can comprehend, and these are the ones you prefer have unilateral and sole control of a technology that can, as you said, vaporize a city?

A man has to have principles, IMHO. One of mine is that the initiation of force against another is wrong. You know as well as I that people can either be forced or persuaded to do a thing. When they are armed, (including the will to use those weapons,) they can no longer be forced, they must be persuaded. That scares the hell out of politicians, because most of them don't have the ability to persuade their employers to do anything but keep them in office, and that only by the fear that a bigger buffoon and/or a bigger crook will get in.

OK.. Now to address the other points: My comparison with cannons... In Revolutionary times, those were the height of WMD and the towns were smaller and the construction limited in its capacity to withstand an attack by them. Comparison of those towns and those weapons with today's cities and tac. nukes is apt, albeit noting once again that I stipulate that a cannon didn't vaporize a whole town with one shot nor did it irradiate the town.

No prohibition in the BoR against libel, slander, or sacrifice? True. Those things cause actual harm, however. There was no prohibition against having a pen, being able to speak, or owning a knife. Should government be the only ones to possess pens and knives to prevent libel and sacrifice? Should we restrict the right of free speech for all to prevent slander by some?

Re: the amendment process: If you want to amend the 2A to specifically exclude nukes from private ownership, that is your choice to attempt to begin that process. You'll have to start by getting 2/3 of either the House or the Senate, then 2/3 of whichever one you didn't start with, then 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree with you. The Founders were wise men and knew that having an ability and process with which to amend the basic framework upon which all our laws are based was absolutely necessary, but they also knew not to make it an easy thing to do.

Banning child molesting leads to banning of intercourse? Not a valid comparison. Banning people from having working sex organs because they might eventually commit some type of molestation, now we're getting closer to the comparison. Remember, you're advocating the ability of government to ban the mere possession of an item; that has nothing to do with using it.

Lastly, I'm sure your point in your closing sentence is to show that the Founders were not infallible. True, they were not. They were far wiser than most (perhaps all) of the living citizens today, however, despite their prejudices.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[jgreiner]

A LONG time ago, I was told that "Anything that precedes the word 'but' is a lie". This is one of my most valuable (and most frequently proven) life lessons.

And that , I believe, was the intent of the author to imply. These sheriffs claim to be pro gun...but it's just a smoke screen. They are anything but pro gun.

 

[jgreiner]

Put most simply, it's none of your, my, or his d*** business what any of the others have, because if we allow one infringement, the incrementalist tendency is that we then are going to find ourselves limited to fists and harsh language.



Blessings,
Bill

Well said.....VERY well said!!! I couldn't agree more. This is exactly why our rights are restricted as much as they are......we have allowed it INCREMENTALLY......130 years ago, if you wanted to carry a gun, you carried one. If you wanted to buy one, you bought one. We have allowed our government to grow beyond what it was intended to be. All because some folks aren't willing to protect themselves, they want others to do it for them.

We can love our country...but we should ALWAYS be fearful of our government.....

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I support every amendment, with restrictions on every single one.

 

[nate1865]

If I can afford to buy a B2 Bomber with a full load of nukes I should be able to by them. I am just saying. I am not against registering my airplane since everyone else already has to just like you do you car.

Actually, you do NOT have to register your car. You only need it registered if you are driving on the state's public streets. If you buy a car and it never leaves your private property you do not need to register it at all, and if you had a series of roads on it would be free to drive as you please, including your children.

 

[GBuck]

Meh, I'm very much against "required training" or registration.

I don't need training to exercise my other rights, and I shouldn't "require" it for this one.

Do your other rights have the potential to take lives when used improperly?

 

[sonofagun]

Typical liberal strategy...

"I believe abortions should be rare, BUT legal"

"I believe guns should be legal, BUT rare."

 

[Westside]

Actually, you do NOT have to register your car. You only need it registered if you are driving on the state's public streets. If you buy a car and it never leaves your private property you do not need to register it at all, and if you had a series of roads on it would be free to drive as you please, including your children.

While I will not argue your point. I am using a broad brush that a plane/car is used as a means of transport from one location to another. As you have stated by use of "public" roads. I am ok with paying a tax/user fee to use public roads just like I would be ok with paying a tax/user fee to use a public airport to land my bomber. I think a B2 makes an excellent mode of transportation to take the family out to dinner

 

[HICKMAN]

Does anyone who opposes required training complain when their kids are required to go through Hunter's Education to hunt?

 

[jgreiner]

Does anyone who opposes required training complain when their kids are required to go through Hunter's Education to hunt?

I am opposed to drivers Ed, simply because it is totally inadequate. I have done a far better AND more comprehensive job of teaching my 16 year old about driving than the class EVER did. That is called being a responsible parent. Same is true of gun safety. MOST of the learning should take place at home.

I can also say the same thing about geometry, Algebra and Trig (former math teacher).

Most of these kinds of requirements are nothing better than gov. red tape...and a revenue generator. Their true usefulness is questionable, ESPECIALLY when run by the gov.

Now.....PRIVATE training is a whole different subject. I fully support that.

The gov rarely does ANYTHING well and efficiently.

 

[Westside]

Does anyone who opposes required training complain when their kids are required to go through Hunter's Education to hunt?

I don't have kids yet. So, take my opinion for what it's worth. But what responsible parent would set their child loose in the woulds by themselves with a gun and tell them to go kill stuff without teaching them anything.

My dad took me with him when he went hunting for years before I was allowed to carry a gun on a hunt. And then for several years after that he followed me to make sure I didn't do something stupid, and if I had there would have been no more hunting for me. So I was trained to go hunting just not by the state.

I am not apposed to training I think training is great and that everyone should take professional training as much as possible. However, I am AGAINST state required training.

 

[Silverado]

I don't have time right now to compose a full reply to this, Silverado, but I'll come back to it later. For now, I'll say that nuclear weapons are terrible things that IMHO no one should own, but I don't get to make that decision. They exist, and the Founders' intent was that the People be at least as well-armed as their government. Their reasoning was sound: there is nothing about governmental power that confers some magical ability to properly handle certain technologies.

There are certain things that are, by their very nature, the exclusive purview of governments. National defense is one of those, and this is what nuclear weapons were designed for. If you want to maintain some semblance of civilization, it is necessary to keep these weapons out of the hands of individuals with their own petty agendas. At least the government is SUPPOSED to exert the will of the entire people, through the election process. The fact that this is not the case with respect to other issues (taxes, social programs, etc.) does not mean that the government has no business regulating anything.

The founders also intended slaves to be 2/3 of a person and women to enjoy second class citizenship and stay in the kitchen. I'm quite glad that we, as a nation, have shed those abominable notions. You seem to gloss over their hypocrisy of championing freedom and "all men created equal," when it is obvious that some were certainly more "equal" than others in their time. I'm quite happy to live in 2011, rather than 1791.

My position is less that "everyone should have a nuke" - hell, there are people on this planet that i don't think should have the right to breathe and people on this board that I wouldn't trust with a cap gun, but it's not my place to deny them their rights- and more that it is not the place of some construct of our people to define and control the mere possession of an item. You, OTOH, seem comfortable with the idea of using the power and force of government to enforce your will that none have a technology you fear on others. These clowns can't seem to grasp the simple concept that you don't spend more money than you have, a concept even a five-year-old can comprehend, and these are the ones you prefer have unilateral and sole control of a technology that can, as you said, vaporize a city?

You trust a group of men who kept their fellow man enslaved and relegated women to second class citizenship over 200 years ago to create a document that ensures freedom to all men? The Constitution, in theory, is a brilliant document that should ensure the highest level of freedom to all Americans. It was, even at the time of its adoption, implemented in a flawed way, because that is the nature of man. Our government will always be flawed, because it is made up of humans like you and I. It is STILL our elected government, and as I believe that nuclear weapons are properly reserved for national defense, and have no place in private hands, then YES, I believe that government control of them is the least bad option.

A man has to have principles, IMHO. One of mine is that the initiation of force against another is wrong. You know as well as I that people can either be forced or persuaded to do a thing. When they are armed, (including the will to use those weapons,) they can no longer be forced, they must be persuaded. That scares the hell out of politicians, because most of them don't have the ability to persuade their employers to do anything but keep them in office, and that only by the fear that a bigger buffoon and/or a bigger crook will get in.

If politicians are so scared of armed constituents, why is our government so bad? I doubt that they are scared of much of anything regarding the populace, except for losing a re-election bid. I'm not sure how your argument about initiating force against another fits in with private possession of nukes. I don't agree with you that the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong. Broad platitudes like the ones you seem to be fond of completely ignore the intricacies of society and humanity.

OK.. Now to address the other points: My comparison with cannons... In Revolutionary times, those were the height of WMD and the towns were smaller and the construction limited in its capacity to withstand an attack by them. Comparison of those towns and those weapons with today's cities and tac. nukes is apt, albeit noting once again that I stipulate that a cannon didn't vaporize a whole town with one shot nor did it irradiate the town.

The fact that you are again attempting to equate artillery with nuclear weapons makes me wonder whether I am wasting my time having a conversation with you. If a man on a hill, or even a group of men, started firing a barrage of artillery into a town or city, there would be a real chance to stop the attack by returning fire with artillery, or sending a company of armed men to deal with the problem. Destruction with nuclear weapons is massive and instantaneous. Your comparison is simply invalid and irrelevant.

No prohibition in the BoR against libel, slander, or sacrifice? True. Those things cause actual harm, however. There was no prohibition against having a pen, being able to speak, or owning a knife. Should government be the only ones to possess pens and knives to prevent libel and sacrifice? Should we restrict the right of free speech for all to prevent slander by some?

Re: the amendment process: If you want to amend the 2A to specifically exclude nukes from private ownership, that is your choice to attempt to begin that process. You'll have to start by getting 2/3 of either the House or the Senate, then 2/3 of whichever one you didn't start with, then 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree with you. The Founders were wise men and knew that having an ability and process with which to amend the basic framework upon which all our laws are based was absolutely necessary, but they also knew not to make it an easy thing to do.

It is not necessary to amend the Constitution unless the majority of the citizenry sees a flaw or injustice that needs to be corrected. I am very comfortable in thinking that a huge majority of my fellow citizens would agree that government regulation of nuclear weapons is reasonable, so I don't anticipate a convention anytime soon.

Banning child molesting leads to banning of intercourse? Not a valid comparison. Banning people from having working sex organs because they might eventually commit some type of molestation, now we're getting closer to the comparison. Remember, you're advocating the ability of government to ban the mere possession of an item; that has nothing to do with using it.

Possession of a nuclear weapon is not the same as the possession of some benign "item." The nature of these weapons precludes them from inclusion in your broad platitudes and principles, IMHO.

Lastly, I'm sure your point in your closing sentence is to show that the Founders were not infallible. True, they were not. They were far wiser than most (perhaps all) of the living citizens today, however, despite their prejudices.

The founding fathers argued amongst each others the same, or worse, than modern day politicians do. While they were excellent statesmen, and provided an excellent framework for a government, their blatant hypocrisy in enslaving others while espousing "freedom for all" leads me to believe that men haven't changed much in the last 200....or 2000 years.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[lashicoN]

It is utterly ridiculous to think that an argument for private possession of nuclear weapons is somehow protected by the second amendment. First of all, and most obviously, the founding fathers did not take into consideration weapons that destroy entire cities with the flick of a switch, because no such thing existed at the time.

Our founders weren't stupid. They were perfectly capable of imagining a weapon that could level an entire city. They could fathom nukes, machine guns, submarines, and tanks. They were afraid the English were going to level New York, with their cannons. It's the same thing, whether you want to admit it or not. The Second Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms, and the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the government shall not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. To say that for some reason, atomic arms are not covered is utterly, simply, ridiculous.

It isn't my problem they exist. I didn't create the bomb. But I do have the right to keep and bear arms. Where does our government derive their right to keep and bear nuclear arms? From the People? I would prefer that technology never existed at all, but it does, and I have the right to keep and bear it, if I could afford it. Do I want a Nuke? No. Do I have the right to have one? If I can afford it and some manufacturer is willing to sell it to me.

Do your other rights have the potential to take lives when used improperly?

You don't have the right to take lives...so which right are you refering to?