Do Americans Have the Right to Bear Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[Very_Boring_Name]

The massacre and assassination attempt in Tucson have reignited the ongoing battle over what limitations should be placed on our rights to bear arms.

Let's assume for a moment -- though there are many Constitutional scholars who disagree -- that the majority of the Supreme Court is correct in its view that the Constitution does in fact confer on Americans a right to bear arms that is similar in scope to our right to free speech and assembly. What does it actually mean, that we have a right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly are "arms"? Do Americans have the right to bear atom bombs? How about biological or chemical weapons?

Read more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/do-americans-have-the-rig_b_808419.html

[slackmaster]

1. The line was drawn correctly in 1934. Read up on it.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

Do Americans have the right to bear atom bombs? How about biological or chemical weapons?

Silly straw man is still a silly straw man.

[Very_Boring_Name]

2. You read that whole article in under 30 seconds!?

WOW!

[slackmaster]

3. It took me about 90 seconds

It's 100% regurgitated crap. I've seen it a hundred times before.

[Sancho]

6. the post is still a good question

and the 1934 act doesn't apply to all possibilities in the future...

[slackmaster]

12. Firearm technology has not advanced significantly since 1934

Other than new materials and improved manufacturing techniques, all of the kinds of firearms that exist today were already available in 1934.

[Tesha]

17. Strangely enough, the Holy Second Amendment doesn't refer to "firearms".

Not once.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

26. The term "arms" covered everything from swords to ships of the line

It's pretty clear what the Second Amendment refers to if you read up on its background.

Militias of the day used small arms and even crew-served cannon.

[onehandle]

32. I can haz nukes?

Great!

[slackmaster]

38. I wish you people would come up with something new once in a while

:eyes:

[spin]

60. Agreed. Those who oppose RKBA lack originality ...

and rarely know ANYTHING about the subject.

Every single thread dealing with RKBA always has at least one poster who makes a comment about owning nukes.

[RSillsbee]

48. Ok here's the post about how the holy first amendment

doesn't refer to computers. Not once. (I've had to whip it out frequently the last few days)

FWIW during the period the constitution was being written your average citizen was required to own a military grade weapon, bayonet (or sword) and basically a full infantry load out for militia service. Privately owned cannons were also in common use

TYPO

[Tesha]

63. The point, of course, and thank you for making it...

..is that we *DO* appear to have a right to modern communications
devices such as computers.

So why no right to modern armaments such as Nuclear, Chemical,
and Biological armaments? Or even RPGs, which are certainly right
there in the category of firearms?

The NRA has drawn a completely arbitrary line that excludes all
sorts of firearms but includes 30-round magazines and semi-
automatic weapons. If you're going to defend an arbitrary line,
at least own up to the fact that it is *ENTIRELY ARBITRARY*.
And as readily as the arbitrary line is now drawn to include
30-round magazines, it could just as easily limit you to
10-round magazines. Or it might move the other way and
allow every projectile weapon including howitzers.

The current drawing of the line just happens to suit the
folks who compensate with firearms.

Tesha

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

68. The issue of civilian vs. military weapons was settled in 1934 with the passage of the NFA

The National Firearms Act.

[RSillsbee]

70. Not to break your heart dear

But if it were my call I would be able to purchase anything on the TO&E for an 11 Bravo (light infantryman).

[onehandle]

23. Oh, so when it is useful for you, dates and types of 'arms' are all important.

Then let's be true to the Constitution, and limit it to arms of that day.

'Hand me my musket, the Redcoats are coming.'

[Very_Boring_Name]

24. Except the constitution doesn't say "the right to bear the arms that exist right now"

nice try though. Your flailing and desperate attempts to deflect failed.

[onehandle]

29. Oh, so the lack of details is important.

So my five year old can have that surface to air missile he's had his eye on.

Great!

[Very_Boring_Name]

34. Yes the lack of details is important, hence the crux of the argument in the article

Pro-gun people claim that they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear firearms. The constitution doesn't say firearms, it says arms. If they're willing to accept limitations on mustard gas and atom bombs, then why not handguns?

[slackmaster]

40. As I already pointed out, the issue of civilian vs. military arms was settled in 1934

Read up on the subject.

[X_Digger]

55. Ooh, look, class, it's a false dilemma. n/t

[slackmaster]

25. Then you should turn off your computer and go back to communicating with paper and quill pens

Nice try.

[onehandle]

31. See post #30. nt

[badtoworse]

27. In that case, you should break out the quill and parchment paper

[onehandle]

30. Do you guys all get your standard issue talking points from the same place?

Let me answer for you. Yes.

[badtoworse]

37. When an argument is sound, why change it?

Would you have felt better if I referred to the Town Crier? That one doesn't get used as often.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

7. I was given that article and appreciated the note.. Now can you explain 'correctly'

... and then move from 1934 to 2014??????????????????????

[slackmaster]

10. The NFA restrictions are severe, but they have served well. Firearm technology hasn't really changed

Semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles had already been around for decades when the NFA was passed.

[pintobean]

4. Try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[Pancho Sanza]

5. No. n/t

...

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

8. Evidently they do, it's called FREE SPEECH... thanks Rush,Glenn,Dan,Ann,Sara,Sean.

[DrDan]

9. good article - K&R

[Iggo]

11. Is that you, Boojata? (n/t)

[Taverner]

13. It's my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to play around with Botulinum toxin if I want!

You can take my Botulinum from my cold, dead hands!

[jeepnstein]

21. Indeed.

[badtoworse]

14. Creamer might understand politics...

but on the subject of firearms and the 2nd Amendment, he's an ignoramous. Spend some time in the Gungeon - crap like that is refuted on a daily basis.

[Tesha]

43. "Refuted"? No. NRA talking points regurgitated as if they were facts? Yes. (NT)

[badtoworse]

67. Ah yes! When the facts don't support your position, blame the messenger.

I wish I had a buck for everytime someone's done that in the Gungeon.

[Rebubula]

15. Ahhhh...

...the smell of overreaching hyperbole.

It warms my heart and takes me back to headier days...


Seriously though...why do people attempt to make these over the top hypothetical questions? Civilians are not allowed to own certain guns - or cars - or pets etc. There is always a limit. Trotting this tired old 'slippery slope' crap of an argument does nothing for the cause.

I support the people's right to bear arms. As long as the government has weapons - so will I. It always amazes me how people on this site will rail and rail against the corruption of the government, loss of freedoms and the over bearing police state - but will actively work to take any form of self defense away from the people. Simply amazing and very short sighted.

[GSLevel9]

16. Oh I've never seen this rhetorical question before :rolleyes:

[Very_Boring_Name]

18. Logic sure seems to hit a nerve in this forum!

[Rebubula]

19. Logic??

[Iggo]

36. LOL...that one got me.

No text needed.

:fistbump:

[badtoworse]

22. Actually, what I think you are seeing is frustration

There is literally nothing in Creamer's piece that hasn't been discussed in this forum dozens of times. What you have in this forum is a group of people who are pretty knowledgeable about these issues (I don't count myself in that group, but I do read and respect what they post) that have responded to Creamer's point many times in response to some uninformed person who has been misled by people like Creamer. I'm sure it gets tiring after a while.

Stick around for a while and keep an open mind - you might learn something.

[jeepnstein]

20. An Atom Bomb?

Who do you know has one for sale? I suppose if you had the money you could try to register it as a Destructive Device and see if that makes it past ATFE. Be sure and hide your dog first because they'll probably stop by for a visit. They might bring the IAEA and the United Stated Military along. Oh, and then there will be those guys who are contractors who get paid to actually haul the things, don't mess with them because they have no sense of humor.

I'm thinking this is all kind of silly because the kind of money it takes to get into atomic weapons is just not something you or I, or Bill Gates for that matter, is able to scrape together.

[Very_Boring_Name]

28. At atom bomb is hyperbole. Lets use a more realistic example

Do I have the right to own mustard gas? How about a pipe bomb? How about anthrax powder? A grenade/rocket launcher? A flamethrower? I have the right to bear arms, and these are afterall, arms.

[badtoworse]

33. "Arms" have been interpreted to mean those that would normally be carried by an individual soldier

...and used against individual target, i.e. rifles, shotguns and pistols. Courts have drawn a line that excludes proximity weapons, such as the ones you described, and crew served weapons such as artillery, missiles and the like.

[Very_Boring_Name]

35. Interpreted where? By whom? When?

[badtoworse]

39. The courts

[Very_Boring_Name]

42. I'm all ears. Give me a specific example of where the courts have interpreted it in that way

[X_Digger]

57. Heller v DC. n/t

[badtoworse]

66. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is probably the most pertinent legislation on the matter

The National Firearms Act dealt with classification of weapons and destructive devices and many of todays restrictions on machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc. are based on it.

I'm not a lawyer and hopefully one will weigh in with a more informed opinion. That said, I believe the most important cases are United States vs Miller (1939) which dealt with the National Firearms Act, District of Columbia vs Heller (2008) which held that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, and the City of Chicago vs McDonald (2010) which held that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states. All three were decided by the SCOTUS.

Here is some reference material to get your education started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law

[slackmaster]

41. Already covered by the National Firearms Act, international treaties, and other laws

Your questions are naive and silly.

[Pancho Sanza]

44. pssst...he's doing the 'devil's advocate' thing

and quite well, too. :D

[jeepnstein]

47. It's good sparring practice.

[Rebubula]

49. No...

...he is not doing it well.

The OP appears (to most people) to be rather foolish and naive.

[Pancho Sanza]

54. I thought that was one of the goals of satanic advocacy!

:shrug:
:D

[jeepnstein]

45. Hmm...

Mustard Gas - Banned by international convention. We signed a treaty on that one. We've invaded countries for less
Pipe Bomb - Destructive device. No military use. Pretty sure NFA wouldn't apply.
Anthrax - Banned by international convention. See Hussein, Saddam. And he didn't even really have any.
Grenade Launcher - NFA Form 4, pay the tax. Repeat procedure for each round of ammo.
Flame Thrower - Sure, why not?

Myself? I'd rather have a new M4 with a tax stamp.

[Very_Boring_Name]

46. None of which override the constitution

Last I checked, "international convention" isn't a legally binding constitutionally-overwriting law.

[jeepnstein]

53. Are you sure?

If you are then try to Form 4 a canister of nerve gas and become the test case. That is, once you find a vendor willing to sell it to you.

[Straw Man]

56. You just went through the looking glass...

Last I checked, "international convention" isn't a legally binding constitutionally-overwriting law.

...and you're now arguing a hardline pro-2A position. Google "UN small arms treaty" and see what you find. Are you sincere about this? If not, then I would call it a great big... Straw Man!

I am Straw Man, and I do not endorse this approach.

[Euromutt]

58. Article VI of the Constitution

Second paragraph:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Italics mine. An international treaty ratified by Congress has equal status to the Constitution.

[Iggo]

61. Ouch!

Score!

[RSillsbee]

52. You can own grenades

W/ proper licensing and flamethrowers are agricultural devices

[one-eyed fat man]

59. Knowledge

Pretty close to a half century ago the United States Army saw fit to teach me how to make explosives from commonly found household chemicals. Once the theoretical instruction was accomplished in the classroom, the students went out to a demolition range and we constructed various improvised explosive devices.

Although I am pushing seventy, I bet I have not forgotten how to make them. Everything I need to make a is readily available. Instant cold packs. Lacquer thinner, Fuel oil. Concrete cleaner. Hair coloring.

This is 53.5 kg bare explosive, or about 120 pounds. Volume, about half a Toyota trunkful. Pack the rest of the trunk with 50 pound boxes of 16d common nails. Use your imagination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV86hPBoIYc&playnext=1&list=PL599C22D28DC9FA96&index=11

Assembling such a car bomb is against the law. Do I have the "right" to assemble such a device?

Or are you totally confused as to who has rights and who we grant rights?

I have the right to Arms, I do not have the right to murder.

I have the right to Free Speech, I do not have the right to libel, slander, or incite a panic.

Is the fact that I know how to build a car bomb problematic? Should the government that taught me how now be able to lock me away on what I could do?

Should all male babies be killed at birth to prevent rape?

Does taking the keys away from sober people a practical way to deal with drunk drivers?

Should people with contagious, incurable and communicable deadly diseases by quarantined?

My take is until someone acts criminally, their rights do not need restriction.

[jeepnstein]

62. I learned to blow up a car in an arson school once.

It's not that big of a deal. Of course we were learning to do it so we could thoroughly investigate such a scene if someone actually popped on off. In reality we'd just stand around and order donuts, make sure the scene was secure, and wait for specialists to arrive. I did learn that it's really not that much fun to mess with explosives. Anyone who thinks owning a bomb is a good defensive measure is probably a nut of some variety.

You can't ban knowledge although the GOP is giving it the old college try.

[RSillsbee]

50. Bill Gates

I bet he could afford one but it would break him

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

65. A magazine that holds 11 rounds instead of 10 is NOT a WMD

And shame on anyone who says otherwise, for it distracts us from the real problem at hand - how to deal with all of this right-wing hatred before it consumes even more innocent lives.

[jody]

71. IMO there is also left-wing hatred under the radar just as there was in Russia in 1917. n/t

[jody]

69. What exactly are "arms"? SCOTUS defined arms in the Heller case.

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104

(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

That's the law of the land.