TexasCHLforum.com

Allow me to jump in with a slightly different viewpoint. I believe that the Constitution says that the right shall not be infringed, which means to me that there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction. Whether I believe sme people should be allowed guns or not is irrelevant to the Constitution. I either have to take the document as it reads or work to change it.

And for the reductio ad absurdem argument about the nukes, it fails because I do think that should be legal. If you can afford the nuke, and can find a vending machine with a big enough cash box for the change it would have to hold, go for it.

But, there is a restriction on the use, especiall where it damages property or hurts another person. You can have the nuke, but you might not be able to use it legally. And obviously, if you are worried about the person breaking the law to use the nuke, then you missed the point that he would also break the law to get one.

As for criminals, if we cannot trust them to vote or have guns, why are they walking the street? If they have completed their punishment, they get all rights back. If we decide a fair punishment is five years and they complete it but we still don't trust them, they get released and we have to wait and see if they do anything.

Illegal aliens is a very unrelated argument because I have a different view of how to fix the immigration problem. In the end, there would be very few illegal aliens, and none that we know where they are.

srothstein wrote: And for the reductio ad absurdem argument about the nukes, it fails because I do think that should be legal. If you can afford the nuke, and can find a vending machine with a big enough cash box for the change it would have to hold, go for it.

But, there is a restriction on the use, especiall where it damages property or hurts another person. You can have the nuke, but you might not be able to use it legally. And obviously, if you are worried about the person breaking the law to use the nuke, then you missed the point that he would also break the law to get one.

So you're saying that it's OK under the constitution and the RKBA to sell nukes out of vending machines, and that it is OK for anyone who wants one and who has the money to buy one?

If so, I don't understand your last statement. If nukes could be built, bought, sold, and possessed without restrictions, someone would not be breaking the law to get one.

But if I understand you correctly, the RKBA includes the right to possess nukes without restriction. It seems that a few predictable things would follow from that.

1) It would become very easy for agents from foreign countries to obtain nukes - much easier than today. Instead of needing to master the technology to operate thousands of centrifuges, detonators synchronized to the picosecond, etc., all an ayatollah would need to do is buy one from one of my vending machines out in front of the UN Building.

I think that would not be good for us or for the world.

2) People could just buy nukes from the vending machine and light them off in our cities. Sure, they would be breaking the law when they detonated them. But I'll bet they wouldn't much care, and the damage would be done. Right now, if they want to nuke one of our cities they have to go to a lot of trouble, make their own (which is hard to do), or steal and smuggle one in (which is easier but still pretty hard).

If they could just buy nukes the way I can buy a six pack, I think some of the planet's more terrorist-minded people would probably do so.

By now, I doubt if we would have a city left.

And remember, the BOR isn't all there is to the constitution. There are enumerated powers and also purposes (i.e. the Preamble).

One of the main purposes for the existence of the constitution is, "...to provide for domestic tranquility.." I believe this to be more than just a flowery phrase.

What would our domestic tranquility be like if our cities were getting nuked by terrorists one by one?

The constitution consists of enumerated powers, rights, and statements of purpose. Sometimes there are conflicts among these things. Sometimes an enumerated power must yield (to another power or a right or a purpose) and sometimes a right must yield (to another right or to an enumerated power or purpose).

To resolve these conflicts we look to the law and the courts.

Sometimes resolution of such a conflict results in a restriction upon a right.

In the example at issue, the law (It would be the NFA ban on "destructive devices" I think.) says "no nukes allowed". I am not aware of any challenge to this law by someone seeking to possess nukes or sell them without restrictions. So the law stands. And if there were such a challenge, I see no chance that any court would rule that someone could build, possess and/or sell nukes without restriction.

So I would say there is a very broad consensus that what we can call, "the nuke ban", is a "reasonable restriction" on the RKBA.

KBCraig wrote:I have never seen so many words wasted by those who advocate gun control trying to pretend they don't.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Then. Deal. With. The. Consequences, rather than trying to pretend they don't exist.

Unless you would allow for nukes, poison gas, etc., you are just as much an advocate of "gun control" as you say I am. (BTW, I don't agree with that, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.) You would just draw the line in a different place than I would.

BTW, I am not trying to make anyone get angry. And nothing I have read here has made me get angry. I've been accused of all kinds of stuff, including being just a product of my RI upbringing, etc. I'm OK with it. And I am not casting any personal aspersions on anyone.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I have never seen so many words wasted by those who advocate gun control trying to pretend they don't.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Then. Deal. With. The. Consequences, rather than trying to pretend they don't exist.

Unless you would allow for nukes, poison gas, etc., you are just as much an advocate of "gun control" as you say I am. (BTW, I don't agree with that, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.) You would just draw the line in a different place than I would.

There's your error: you assume that I draw a line at all. I don't. Neither does the Constitution.

Consequences limit themselves, especially when people are held personally responsible (civilly, not criminally) for what they sell, and to whom.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So there's an example that is not only realistic, it is a historical fact. When the passenger cabin was "uncontrolled", hijackings at gunpoint became very common. When the passenger cabin was established as a controlled area with no guns allowed, hijackings became much less frequent.

You've continued to ignore anygun's position that he wouldn't interfere with private property rights. Aircraft are private property. When guns were disallowed from the passenger cabin, it was because the private property owners chose to restrict them from their private property.

Until TSA was established with the unPATRIOTic Act, airline security remained private. Even though the law forbade carry-on guns, it was up to the airlines to enforce it. Today we have a monstrous, horribly expensive, horribly ineffective bureaucracy in charge, and guns are just as likely to get aboard as ever before.

Get the government out of it, and the airlines would do a much better job of protecting their property and passengers.

KBCraig wrote: You've continued to ignore anygun's position that he wouldn't interfere with private property rights. Aircraft are private property. When guns were disallowed from the passenger cabin, it was because the private property owners chose to restrict them from their private property.

No. It was because the FAA promulgated regulations banning guns and providing for passenger screning.

I'm not ignoring anygun's position. I am just pointing out that the government has commerce clause authority to make and enforce such rules and/or laws. People may disagree as to whether this is constitutional, but that's where the FAA's authority comes from. The rules are currently in place, as they have been for 30+ years. Theoretically, there is a conflict betwen the RKBA and the government's enumerated powers under the commerce clause. To date, there has been no challenge that I am aware of, and certainly no successful one. So it can be presumed that it is constitutioonal, or that the courts would resolve that conflict in favor of the government's commerce clause power, if called upon to rule.

Not to mention that this is irrelevent to the question of whether a rule banning guns aboard airliners is a "reasonable restriction" or not. I say it is.

KBCraig wrote: Until TSA was established with the unPATRIOTic Act, airline security remained private. Even though the law forbade carry-on guns, it was up to the airlines to enforce it.

That's right. The law forbade carry on guns. Not the private property owners.

And yes, the airlines had the responsibility to do the security checks themselves. But that is irrelevant to the argument of why guns were banned and where the authority to ban them came from.

KBCraig wrote: Today we have a monstrous, horribly expensive, horribly ineffective bureaucracy in charge, and guns are just as likely to get aboard as ever before.

We may well agree about the expensive, ineffective bureaucracy, but guns are much less likely to get aboard since the restrictions were implemented (back in the 70's) than before the restrictions were implemented, when no security checks were done and anyone could hide a gun in their bag or on their person.

Before the security checks were put in place, airliners were being hijacked every month.

Here's a link to Wikopedia article on air passenger screening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_se ... _authority

Note the following passage.

Sky marshals were introduced in 1970 but there were insufficient numbers to protect every flight and hijackings continued to take place. Consequently in late 1972, the FAA required that all airlines begin screening passengers and their carry-on baggage by January 5, 1973.

There were over 100 hijackings of US aircraft between 1968 and 1972. After weapons were banned and screening was introduced, the number of hijackings slowed to a trickle.

Summary:

1) The FAA promulgated rules banning weapons and requiring screening 35 years ago.
2) Current versions of those rules are still in place. They have not been found to be unconstitutional.
3) After the screening was implemented, hijackings plummetted.
4) Frankie concludes, in his opinion, that rules banning passengers from carrying weapons aboard are "reasonable restrictions" on the RKBA and represent a constitutional exercise of the government's authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I just think that the potential harm to society if the items I listed above were freely available (as in my poison gas / bio-weapon vending machine) is huge, and the potential benefit is nil. I don't want to live my life wondering if or when someone is going buy a nuclear bomb or a few tons of mustard gas from a vending machine and light it off in my city.

Frankie, the items you dread are available from the black market arms dealer vending machine. They are freely available to anyone with the money in exact change. Third world dictators and looney tune commie dictators can either buy or build whatever they want.

Restrictions only prevent the law abiding citizen from repelling these dictators. This is the fact that must be accepted when you decide to enact the first restriction. ONLY THE LAW ABIDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE RESTRICTION. THE RESTRICTION WILL NOT STOP THE EVIL.
It does not matter what scenario the antis use to defend a restriction. In every case the restriction will actually support crime/terror and prevent the innocent from defending themselves. Tell the victims globally how you want to institute reasonable restrictions to help keep them safe. Be certain to tell the thugs too and watch them laugh. “Restrictions? We don’t need no stinking restrictions!� Funny when you use a line from a classic movie. We use it a lot when talking about badges. I think it fits pretty well here too.

Since when have you heard a collective groan from the BG when another restriction is passed and signed into law? As I recall when Klin-ton signed the AWB I did not see the Crips, Bloods, Nortenos or Surenos piling up their AKs in front of the LAPD stations. That AWB sure did a lot of good. Let’s see now, the criminals that had the EBRs were already criminals, they did not turn them in, so they were still criminals. The LACs who were not criminals before the AWB was signed felt their RKBA was infringed, did not turn in their EBRs and were then…..criminals.

Nice. Reasonable restriction makes criminals out of LAC with just a stroke of a pen.

srothstein wrote:But, there is a restriction on the use, especially where it damages property or hurts another person. You can have the nuke, but you might not be able to use it legally. And obviously, if you are worried about the person breaking the law to use the nuke, then you missed the point that he would also break the law to get one.

Thank you, srothstein, you see my point. If the act is forbidden you need not restrict the law abiding citizen’s ability to arm and defend themselves with whatever means they desire and can afford.

Another point that drives the reasonable restriction bandwagon is society’s inability to stomach the act of actually punishing the evil ones who harm and kill our innocents.

The only way to minimize the consequences of unrestricted right to keep and bear arms is with swift justice and immediate punishment that fits the crime. Judicious use of the death penalty where appropriate would do more to control crime than any reasonable restriction.

Anygun’s reasonable restriction for the RKBA is the death penalty for violent criminals. The real solution to minimize the effect of no restrictions.

Anygunanywhere

frankie_the_yankee wrote:What's dishonest about it?

It's dishonest because it IS reduction to the absurd, and even you acknowledge it is absurd. Its very absurdity makes it fail on so many levels and you will pick at each arguement at each level as pointing out some level of restriction and stry further and further from honest interchange - a long time anti-gun nut strategy.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If there were no restrictions, why couldn't I order a few nukes from Pantex and sell them out of a vending machine set up outside of the UN Building? What would stop me from doing that? Not to mention mustard gas, Sarin, etc.

Nothing, nothing at all, and I am in favor of that.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:"No restrictions" either means no restrictions or it doesn't.

If you think I should be able to order up some nukes from Pantex and sell them just say so. Or if you think I shouldn't be able to do that then say that. I mean, you must think one or the other, right?

And I am in favor of your doing that - I really would like to see you do it for that matter.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:FWIW, by the use of an absurd example, I am simply employing the "reductio ad absurdum" method to illustrate that the "no restrictions" position leads to some absurd outcomes.

And thank you for acknowledging what I already pointed out, even if you are mixing your metaphors.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:What it boils down to is that it is the "no restrictions" position that is absurd, not my argument.

But you haven't demonstrated that it is absurd, just that you can think up an absurd example.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:What we would do better to discuss is just what restrictions might be reasonable and what ones might not be reasonable.

None are reasonable.

The rest of your arguement is the standard anti-gun nut arguement too.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Now, you want a more realistic example. No problem.

Thank you for acknowledging that your example is unrealistic.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Refer to my reply to seamus. Back in the 60's, there were no rules against carrying guns on airliners, and no screening of passengers or carryon bags. It became quite common (once a month or more) for people to hijack airliners at gunpoint and demand they be flown to Cuba or wherever. It took a while, but the government finally banned guns from the passenger cabin and instituted passenger screening. After these actions were taken, the number of hijackings plummetted. These days, hijackings are very infrequent, especially of US airliners.

Having traveled by air quite frequently back then, I can assure you that there were indeeed rules against carrying on board, but they were not federal rules, they were the airlines own rules, and yes they were not well enforced, but think about this for a moment - if carry on planes was as common as your example pre-supposes, how come more passengers didn't gun down the hijackers? Simple, the ones inclined to follow the rules did so.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And yes, this didn't prevent 9/11. Nothing is perfect. In my view, a huge blunder on the government's part was to ban flight crews from carrying guns. This was done sometime in the 80's I think. (I don't exactly remember.)

You might need a better citation than that, and wikipedia is not good enough - I have posted blatantly erronous stuff there, just to demonstrate that it could be done.

. . .

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So there's an example that is not only realistic, it is a historical fact. When the passenger cabin was "uncontrolled", hijackings at gunpoint became very common. When the passenger cabin was established as a controlled area with no guns allowed, hijackings became much less frequent.

Actually you didn't establish any fact other than when screening for weapons started hijackings were reduced. Laws against hijackings and weapons on planes were passed long before screening started, screening was only implemented after some bureaucrat realized that the simple fact of a law was not going to stop the bad guys from doing bad things.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

jimlongley wrote:It's dishonest because it IS reduction to the absurd, and even you acknowledge it is absurd. Its very absurdity makes it fail on so many levels and you will pick at each arguement at each level as pointing out some level of restriction and stry further and further from honest interchange - a long time anti-gun nut strategy.

OK, time for a definition of the connotation of "absurdity". A "reduction to absurdity" is a logical simplification or generalization of an argument to the point where an impossible scenario occurs. In math, that would be a proof ending in "2=3", which is impossible and thus the opposite of the theory is supported. In philosophy, it's a reduction to a logical contradiction, such as "The truth of A is required for B to be true, but if B is true then A is false". Therefore if B is true, then A must be at the same time both true and not true, which is a logical contradiction and thus B cannot be true. Kant used this to argue that lying is always wrong; meaningful language is required to lie, but if there were no categorical imperative against lying, language would become meaningless as the validity and therefore the meaning of a statement would become impossible to determine.

A true reduction to absurdity does not make the argument absurd; it is in fact a very strong argument when properly constructed. There are however informal reductions to absurdity where the arguer arrives at a situation that would not be impossible, but would be contrary to his intended audience's preferred way of life. Even if constructed properly, it's only valid if the end scenario is truly an unliveable one.

I personally would be more than a bit unsettled by a country that had absolutely no restrictions on any weapon whatsoever, and I think anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. A thermonuclear warhead currently runs about US$200-300 million in cash on the black market. There are a lot of individuals and organizations who have that kind of money, would therefore have no trouble buying a nuke in such a climate, and would be highly inclined to detonate it regardless of any personal consequences. The unrestricted right to weapons is therefore NOT self-limiting as was claimed, and restricting/banning the possession, sale, transfer and yes, production of nuclear weapons makes it prohibitively difficult to obtain one.

There is a difference between nuclear weapons and guns; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an internationally-binding document, while gun law is national at best. The world as a whole condemns the development, use and free transfer of nuclear weapons, while governments' opinions on gun ownership run the gamut from outright bans to no regulation. A nuclear weapon therefore is hard to get no matter where you are in the world, but if one country bans guns while another doesn't, the supply is still there. THAT is what makes this argument absurd; there is a massive quantitative difference between a nuclear weapon in terms of cost, destructive potential and international condemnation (and thus global supply), and that of "small arms". In addition, a nuclear weapon is by its very nature a weapon that cannot be directed, similar to other explosive, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. It is ill-suited for personal defense as the user is just as likely if not more likely to become a victim of his own weapon. A WMD used against a criminal does not protect the lives of those around the criminal, and therefore is not a defense weapon. A firearm on the other hand, although no less tragically deadly in criminal hands and perhaps more deadly per dollar ($300 million buys a LOT of small arms), has infinitely more uses as a tool for good.

Maybe that's a line that is drawn; you must be able to articulate a use for the weapon in a civilian environment other than mass destruction. A civilian, looking at what is available under that bar, would certainly not call it restrictive. No WMDs, no tanks, no armed aircraft, no flamethrowers, and no explosive devices. That allows any emplaceable or personal weapon of any design, class and specification that doesn't launch an explosive projectile. If you wanted, you could put a minigun turret on your house or car, no special licenses required. However, it is still a restriction on the RKBA because any weapon of any type is an "arm" and we are banning explosives and WMDs which is an infringement on you having such weapons. I posit that that restriction is reasonable because it does not, in fact, restrict your right to self-defense. Are you going to say the God-given right of self-defense, affirmed and not given by the 2A, equates to a 50-kiloton thermonuclear warhead in your living room? THAT is absurd, in the logical nonsensical meaning, because a thermonuke cannot be used for personal defense.

Liko81 wrote:OK, time for a definition of the connotation of "absurdity". A "reduction to absurdity" is a logical simplification or generalization of an argument to the point where an impossible scenario occurs. In math, that would be a proof ending in "2=3", which is impossible and thus the opposite of the theory is supported. In philosophy, it's a reduction to a logical contradiction, such as "The truth of A is required for B to be true, but if B is true then A is false". Therefore if B is true, then A must be at the same time both true and not true, which is a logical contradiction and thus B cannot be true. Kant used this to argue that lying is always wrong; meaningful language is required to lie, but if there were no categorical imperative against lying, language would become meaningless as the validity and therefore the meaning of a statement would become impossible to determine.

A true reduction to absurdity does not make the argument absurd; it is in fact a very strong argument when properly constructed. There are however informal reductions to absurdity where the arguer arrives at a situation that would not be impossible, but would be contrary to his intended audience's preferred way of life. Even if constructed properly, it's only valid if the end scenario is truly an unliveable one.

I personally would be more than a bit unsettled by a country that had absolutely no restrictions on any weapon whatsoever, and I think anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. A thermonuclear warhead currently runs about US$200-300 million in cash on the black market. There are a lot of individuals and organizations who have that kind of money, would therefore have no trouble buying a nuke in such a climate, and would be highly inclined to detonate it regardless of any personal consequences. The unrestricted right to weapons is therefore NOT self-limiting as was claimed, and restricting/banning the possession, sale, transfer and yes, production of nuclear weapons makes it prohibitively difficult to obtain one.

There is a difference between nuclear weapons and guns; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an internationally-binding document, while gun law is national at best. The world as a whole condemns the development, use and free transfer of nuclear weapons, while governments' opinions on gun ownership run the gamut from outright bans to no regulation. A nuclear weapon therefore is hard to get no matter where you are in the world, but if one country bans guns while another doesn't, the supply is still there. THAT is what makes this argument absurd; there is a massive quantitative difference between a nuclear weapon in terms of cost, destructive potential and international condemnation (and thus global supply), and that of "small arms". In addition, a nuclear weapon is by its very nature a weapon that cannot be directed, similar to other explosive, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. It is ill-suited for personal defense as the user is just as likely if not more likely to become a victim of his own weapon. A WMD used against a criminal does not protect the lives of those around the criminal, and therefore is not a defense weapon. A firearm on the other hand, although no less tragically deadly in criminal hands and perhaps more deadly per dollar ($300 million buys a LOT of small arms), has infinitely more uses as a tool for good.

Maybe that's a line that is drawn; you must be able to articulate a use for the weapon in a civilian environment other than mass destruction. A civilian, looking at what is available under that bar, would certainly not call it restrictive. No WMDs, no tanks, no armed aircraft, no flamethrowers, and no explosive devices. That allows any emplaceable or personal weapon of any design, class and specification that doesn't launch an explosive projectile. If you wanted, you could put a minigun turret on your house or car, no special licenses required. However, it is still a restriction on the RKBA because any weapon of any type is an "arm" and we are banning explosives and WMDs which is an infringement on you having such weapons. I posit that that restriction is reasonable because it does not, in fact, restrict your right to self-defense. Are you going to say the God-given right of self-defense, affirmed and not given by the 2A, equates to a 50-kiloton thermonuclear warhead in your living room? THAT is absurd, in the logical nonsensical meaning, because a thermonuke cannot be used for personal defense.

Yes, but you'll note that I carefully avoided using "reductio ad absurdam" which I recognize as being a legitimate form of arguement, and used instead "reduced to absurd" by which I mean that the conclusion reached from it, ie that thermo-nuclear vending machines in front of the UN are a logical and undesireable result of having no limitations on arms ownership, is both absurd and a very weak arguement. The example, the proliferation of a-bomb vending machines in the absence of "reasonable regulation," more closely approaches being a formal fallacy than any reductio.

It is my suggestion that a proper arguement for restrictions, whether they are termed "reasonable" or not, would fail on its own merit, reducing those who argue for regulation to using absurd exemplifications to make their case.

Of course a 50k atom bomb is not a self defense weapon - or is it? Suppose, just suppose, you wind up the sole survivor of a huge attack by some other aggressive nation, wouldn't you want that last bomb in the vending machine down the street to be available to you so you could retaliate? And the B-52b to carry it in, etc, etc, etc - ad nauseum.

See, that particular absurdity can be played out to sublime, as Kant used the term, ends, truly formless and without bounds.

And a bazooka, another anti-gun favorite, is also not a defensive weapon, except in certain circumstances, etc, etc, etc.

I don't feel that I am kidding myself in any way shape or form - with few exceptions weapons possession would tend to be somewhat self-limiting. I can remember when you could buy tanks, among other military surplus, and the only requirement was that you could't have the real guns on it, or they had to be demilled - shortly after WWII VFWs and Legion posts across the country had cannon and tanks set up in front of them, along with countless war memorial parks and town squares. I even remember "firing" the howitzer near where I lived once, and boy was that a bit of work, but those items were expensive to obtain, even mil-surp, and tough to maintain too, and being available today would not likely lead to having everyone and their neighbor owning one.

And then there are the laws against damaging others' property, and others themselves, that really accomplish so much today. After all, with those laws in place, we don't have to worry about whether someone will misuse a gun, knife, or baseball bat, do we?

jimlongley wrote:I don't feel that I am kidding myself in any way shape or form - with few exceptions weapons possession would tend to be somewhat self-limiting. I can remember when you could buy tanks, among other military surplus, and the only requirement was that you could't have the real guns on it, or they had to be demilled - shortly after WWII VFWs and Legion posts across the country had cannon and tanks set up in front of them, along with countless war memorial parks and town squares. I even remember "firing" the howitzer near where I lived once, and boy was that a bit of work, but those items were expensive to obtain, even mil-surp, and tough to maintain too, and being available today would not likely lead to having everyone and their neighbor owning one.

Among 99% of civilians, yes, the ownership of arms is self-limiting. But you're ignoring the golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules. There are a lot of NGOs and even individuals who, if they felt the need or the desire, have the resources to purchase, maintain and use very destructive weapons. For instance, Exxon-Mobil, in the absence of any regulation to the contrary, could own, maintain and operate a fleet of combat aircraft and a private military force. The need for same can be easily articulated; they own oil platforms in international waters and in the waters of foreign countries, and as such they are obligated to defend them by their own means as the U.S. may or may not be willing to risk its own interests to defend, recapture or in extreme circumstances destroy an oil platform under attack or occupation. It's all very logical. However, you now have an NGO commanding a military group. History has demonstrated that such paramilitary forces are inherently unstable. What if Exxon decides that its marketplace competition with BP or Chevron is a "war" in the literal sense? What if Exxon decides it's powerful enough to start collecting taxes instead of paying them? Even if it's not, the U.S. would have to fight a war on its own turf to prove it. The Supremacy Clause is just a few words on paper if it is demonstrated that the government the Constitution creates and the army that government maintains cannot or will not assert that supremacy of law within its borders.

And that's just within its borders, against people who would lose a lot by tangoing with the Green Machine. Osama bin Laden was a billionaire before we got his assets frozen post 9/11. His family was and still is an influential one in Saudi Arabia, and he had the patronage of the Afghan government. If he were somehow able to get his hands on a nuclear weapon or other WMD, believe me, we'd know about it. A nuclear 9/11 would have leveled the entirety of NYC, and would have been an act of terrorism not only unsurpassed, but unsurpassable. He has not, and thank G-d, because world governments work very hard to keep certain levels of weaponry fully in control of governments, specifically "stable" governments. The definition of "stable" is about as subjective as it gets (namely NATO allies, regardless of who's the dictator this week), but no nuclear weapons have been used militarily since Nagasaki, and the majority of people and governments of the world want to keep it that way, for very good reason. Uninhibited proliferation of nuclear warheads to anybody with the cash is the fear driving our war of words with Iran and Syria. If either one builds or buys the bomb, Israel is at real risk of becoming a flat plain of superheated glass. Israel is not going to let that happen, and it's an open secret THEY have the bomb. They'll strike first, as they've done before, and when it's done we'll be lucky if the damage is confined to the Middle East.

OK, you could have bought a tank. You've already admitted you couldn't buy the working gun for it, and milsurps post WWII were M4 Shermans. The '52 Caddy was bigger (OK, that's not true, but not far wrong; the Caddy's footprint is larger). The Sherman never had the car-crushing footprint, suspension or raw tonnage as the M1A1 or even the M60A2. I find it very difficult to believe they'd let anyone have one of those even as a C&R, much less milsurp.

My whole point is, even though 99% of civilians could neither afford nor desire to have such weapons, there will always be NGOs who are willing and able, and they are not all friendly. Such weapons have also increased in power with the advance of technology, so the "milsurp army" of today would be a far more formidable force than the "milsurp army" of 1950. I live in Dallas, and the Metroplex is high on the target list (having both one of the world's major civilian airports and a NAS, not to mention about 3 million infidels). If the U.S. or anyone else starts auctioning off nukes I'm heading for the hills.

KBCraig wrote:Get the government out of it, and the airlines would do a much better job of protecting their property and passengers.

Rhet rohhhh...

OK, as I agree with the whole idea about getting the government out of a lot of things...The "private" airline companies and the government failed us miserably (against a very well prepared and determined enemy bent on killing as many of us as they could) a few years ago...

Now what is the solution??? Maybe we should give the control, responsibility and accountability (and the severe punishments for failure) of the security back to the "private" entities...

In the mean time, I think smacking them around as they pop up like gophers pleases me to no end...

So all of this is beside the point...And I digress to my old tried and true opinion that how can I possibly trust an elected official or government that doesn't trust me with my guns? When we got it down on paper from the ole get-go that says I can do so with any means, keeping and bearing arms (of whatever type I can afford or construct) and not be infringed upon by ANYONE or ANYTHING!

Seems pretty simple to me...And only complex to those that wish to relieve me of this inalienable/individual and moral right...

So if I want to construct something that potentially could cause widespread damage and destruction (oxymoronic, I know... ) I must be willing to accept the cost and more importantly the responsibility and accountability for its use...

So the use of said potential, rediculous WMD(s), I have made the decision that it is not practical, nor necessary to develop and deploy said weaponry...There...I feel better, and should be considered reasonably responsible...

Anyway I feel I have gone off-track, and therefore must go back and review the real purpose for this thread and respond accordingly...

Liko81 wrote:Among 99% of civilians, yes, the ownership of arms is self-limiting. But you're ignoring the golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules. There are a lot of NGOs and even individuals who, if they felt the need or the desire, have the resources to purchase, maintain and use very destructive weapons. For instance, Exxon-Mobil, in the absence of any regulation to the contrary, could own, maintain and operate a fleet of combat aircraft and a private military force.

. . .

My whole point is, even though 99% of civilians could neither afford nor desire to have such weapons, there will always be NGOs who are willing and able, and they are not all friendly.

And those same are already willing and able, despite "reasonable restrictions."

Liko81 wrote:OK, you could have bought a tank. You've already admitted you couldn't buy the working gun for it, and milsurps post WWII were M4 Shermans.

I suppose I could have said "armored fighting vehicles" instead of tanks, but either way you would be wrong. There was a broad selection of tanks in use through WWII, Shermans, Stuarts, Lees, Pershings, Chaffees, and a variety of models that never acquired a nickname, right up to super heavies and tank destroyers. All were available at military surplus yards across the county. And actually, you could buy the working guns, you just had to jump through the NFA hoops.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So you're saying that it's OK under the constitution and the RKBA to sell nukes out of vending machines, and that it is OK for anyone who wants one and who has the money to buy one?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

If so, I don't understand your last statement. If nukes could be built, bought, sold, and possessed without restrictions, someone would not be breaking the law to get one.

What I was saying is that they can possess anything they want legally. They may not be able to use the possession without breaking the law, but they could possess it. You can legally possess a gun but may not be able to legally use it to shoot someone, depending on the circumstances.

But if I understand you correctly, the RKBA includes the right to possess nukes without restriction. It seems that a few predictable things would follow from that.

1) It would become very easy for agents from foreign countries to obtain nukes - much easier than today. Instead of needing to master the technology to operate thousands of centrifuges, detonators synchronized to the picosecond, etc., all an ayatollah would need to do is buy one from one of my vending machines out in front of the UN Building.

I think that would not be good for us or for the world.

No, it would not make a difference in the world at all. How many of the countries in the world thta have nukes truly developed them on their own? One. The rest used the published knowledge or stolen knowledge to get to where they could make it. Some countries may be trying to master the technology to make more of them because it is cheaper than trying to buy the supply they want, or because the other countries all think they are nuts and will not sell them. But, you as a seller could also exhibit some degree of sense and refuse to sell to the same country under my scheme. And it obviously does not make a difference, given the fact that Pakistan has nukes already, as do some other countries that I have some doubts about.

The market already exists for the countries to buy what they want. Prohibitions never work.

2) People could just buy nukes from the vending machine and light them off in our cities. Sure, they would be breaking the law when they detonated them. But I'll bet they wouldn't much care, and the damage would be done. Right now, if they want to nuke one of our cities they have to go to a lot of trouble, make their own (which is hard to do), or steal and smuggle one in (which is easier but still pretty hard).

Those same people could already buy the same nukes. The criminals will buy the nukes if they want to use them. It is already shown that criminals who will use a weapon will break the laws to get that weapon, such as knives, guns, machine guns, etc. Only honest citizens obey the laws.

If they could just buy nukes the way I can buy a six pack, I think some of the planet's more terrorist-minded people would probably do so.

By now, I doubt if we would have a city left.

The only thing truly stopping them is the cost. Terrorists do not have that much money to spend on nukes. After all, even Bin Laden's fortune was only estimated at $250,000,000 last i heard. Nukes are expensive and there is no profit in bombing a city.

One of the other tings really stopping the terrorist who would consider this is that they are truly regretting the attack on the Trade Towers. They did not expect the response they got from us, based on the previous responses we have given to terrorism. How would we, as a people, respond to a nuke going off in ne of our cities? Even the Democratic leaders would not be able to hold the citizens back from forcing the war to expand to include most of the Mideast.

And remember, the BOR isn't all there is to the constitution. There are enumerated powers and also purposes (i.e. the Preamble).

One of the main purposes for the existence of the constitution is, "...to provide for domestic tranquility.." I believe this to be more than just a flowery phrase.

What would our domestic tranquility be like if our cities were getting nuked by terrorists one by one?

The constitution consists of enumerated powers, rights, and statements of purpose. Sometimes there are conflicts among these things. Sometimes an enumerated power must yield (to another power or a right or a purpose) and sometimes a right must yield (to another right or to an enumerated power or purpose).

Here we have a very basic disagreement on the Constitution and how it works. I do not think any "purpose" overrides any right or power enumerated. The concept of the purpose statements, such as the preamble, was to explain why the powers were enumerated and why the government was restricted.

The government cannot take any action based on it being justified by a purpose statement if it is not authorized by an enumerated or implied power.

Then we also have to look at which is more important, a power or a right. Note that the powers are almost all contained in the main body of the Constitution. The Amendments always supercede anything in the main body, so most of the explicit rights supercede most of the enumerated powers. This is the concept of an amendment or change to the document.

If there is a conflict between a right in the main body and a power in the main body, our concept of government (limited) means the right should always win. Even the courts use this as a basis, ruling that government must show an overriding interest in restricting the right for it to be a constitutional law.

To resolve these conflicts we look to the law and the courts.

Sometimes resolution of such a conflict results in a restriction upon a right.

In the example at issue, the law (It would be the NFA ban on "destructive devices" I think.) says "no nukes allowed". I am not aware of any challenge to this law by someone seeking to possess nukes or sell them without restrictions. So the law stands. And if there were such a challenge, I see no chance that any court would rule that someone could build, possess and/or sell nukes without restriction.

So I would say there is a very broad consensus that what we can call, "the nuke ban", is a "reasonable restriction" on the RKBA.

The fact that the courts would not rule in that manner means nothing to what the Constitution says. I do not agree, and at least one other poster also does not agree, that this is a reasonable restriction.

I do agree that the SCOTUS would probably not rule that nukes were allowed, especially not right now. But, if we take the Heller case and get just a statement that it is an individual right first, I could see a long line of cases that would then lead to the exact ruling that a nuke was an allowable purchase. It will take the perfect cases for each ruling, but I can see it happening.

As an example, if the Heller case is ruled the way I expect, I can see the next case. Suppose I, as a police officer and veteran, bought a class III weapon. Maybe I buy two or three, going through the whole process. I then attempt to buy a brand new fully automatic weapon of the type used by my department. Of course, I am declined based on the '86 ban. If I sued just to unfreeze the register, I think I could win the case. That is one of the perfect cases that show the law is doing nothing but making it hard on law abiding citizens.

So, overall, I do believe that the language of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the govenrment has NO legal authority to restrict this right, that there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction, and that it will be a long time until the courts also take that view but it will happen.