RKBA and self defense

[aardwolf]

Instead of derailing the other discussion (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &start=150) let's talk about this here.

Ok…let’s pretend that I buy in on your theory that it is a god given right to self defense and because of that I have the right to the best tools to do that job.

I have some questions:

Because there are foreign powers that have the ability to do me great bodily harm and/or cause death via a nuclear attack. Given that I have the god given right to self defense and by proxy have the right to the best tools out there. Then I should be able to build a nuclear silo and have the biggest nuclear warhead I can buy so that I can defend my self from such an attack.

Is that correct?

Remember...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed…period…end of story…correct?

[pt145ss]

Instead of derailing the other discussion (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &start=150) let's talk about this here.

Ok…let’s pretend that I buy in on your theory that it is a god given right to self defense and because of that I have the right to the best tools to do that job.

I have some questions:

Because there are foreign powers that have the ability to do me great bodily harm and/or cause death via a nuclear attack. Given that I have the god given right to self defense and by proxy have the right to the best tools out there. Then I should be able to build a nuclear silo and have the biggest nuclear warhead I can buy so that I can defend my self from such an attack.

Is that correct?

Remember...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed…period…end of story…correct?

They are one in the same...and you did not answer the question.

[aardwolf]

It's your idea. You're free to defend it. Or not.

[aardwolf]

Let's start with something simple.

Bearing arms means carrying them around with you. How do you propose to do that?

[pt145ss]

Let's start with something simple.

Bearing arms means carrying them around with you. How do you propose to do that?

Ok...For argument sake let's say a hand held surface to air missile…because I want to protect my self from an aerial attack.


All though the argument was…it is a god given right to self defense and therefore the best tool should be used to those ends. Note…at that point you are not talking constitution. I will have to look back at the thread to find that but it was said.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Is it me or is this topic looping off into never-never land?

[Frost]

Rights are important, but you can not select one right and apply it in the case of a single person and see how extreme an argument you can come up with. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but i also have a right to life which would be seriously threatened if anyone with the cash could buy a nuke.

[shootthesheet]

I hear this a lot from the other side. It is my opinion that it comes from the same place where they believe abortion should be legal as a matter of free speech. Abortion is not the point but the strange idea that it is okay as a matter of the First Amendment. No, an American cannot build and keep a nuke. That is far beyond anything allowed by the 2A. It is in the category of weapons that are real "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and even controlled world wide. And that is where my belief comes in. I think any conventional "arm", that any army in the world can man, is covered by the 2A. That includes jets and tanks and the other things that go "boom" and such. Can't own explosive devises without strict safety laws for their storage, use and, handling, but ownership is covered.

In that, I believe words mean what they say and say what they mean. There is need, at times, to go outside of the exact words used but, arms would have included artillery weapons and did even thru the civil war and into WW2 and maybe beyond where people took their personally owned weapons to war. Officers bought complete weapons systems out of their own pockets and enlisted bought their own rifles and such. It is in history that this happened and I believe, if asked, no person would say it wasn't inside our rights before recent times.

It goes back to the things we believe and never question. Nukes, no, that is not something anyone or country should have. Other WMDs as well. However, machine guns, tanks, missiles, etc. are included by histories example. It is the idea that if we have laws against murder, why do we need gun laws that are almost never prosecuted in murder cases anyway? It isn't the weapons, but the owners of those weapons. It is the government trying to protect itself that has taken our rights and changed our thinking to believe they can stop us from owning what we desire. They have taken our ability to fight an equal fight in the name of "fear the nut with the arsenal". Well, I personally do, and its the governments that have an overwhelming monopoly on those arsenals.

[srothstein]

Well, I guess I am the weird one. I say the answer is yes, you have the right to the biggest and best nuke you can afford. The right to protect yourself is not to be infringed.

Now, as to some of the arguments made, I have to point out that you are no more threatened by my owning a nuke than you are by my owning a pistol. Either way, if I decide to kill you, you are just as dead. If I am law abiding and only use it in defense, you are safe unless you attack me.

As for the government defending me, it seems they did not do too good a job in a lot of historical cases, say Pearl Harbor in 1941 or NYC in 2001 as the most famous. How many times has our government been accused of allowing an attack to occur to justify some planned response? I don't know if it has happened or not, but it seems reasonable to me to remember that the final responsibility for my defense is me.

As for the nukes being controlled around the world, do you really buy into that logic? Guns are also controlled in most places around the world. Swords are even controlled in some. We do not use foreign logic or actions in our rules.

As for the weapons of mass destruction, I have to admit that this is truly the only weapon of mass destruction. I have always hated that term but nukes really do destroy mass, or at least convert it to energy. On the more serious side, I would ask how you define that term and where you draw the line. Many people say an AR is a weapon of mass destruction because of its ability to fire many rounds rapidly. I don't care how much destruction the potential use of the weapon would cause, I have the right to the weapon.

Of course, I have to admit that this argument makes very little sense. The cost of the nuke makes it prohibitive for most citizens, and therefore this is a ridiculous question. Does anyone really think that Bill Gates could not get one if he really wanted one? Just as you and I can get pistols, even where they are banned, anyone with enough money can get a nuke now on the black market. Prohibitions never work, they just raise the price of the item desired.

[bdickens]

Is it me or is this topic looping off into never-never land?

It started out in never-never land.

[pt145ss]

The point of the question has to do with reasonableness. For those who truly believe our 2nd amendment is God given and shall not be infringed, I would expect an answer similar to srothstien’s. However, most answers were not like srothstien’s. Saying things like the government can protect us, or no…because nukes are WMDs…these types of answers tell me that most of you believe that there is some line between reasonable and unreasonable. As soon as that flaw in the ideal that 2a shall not be infringed is opened, we open the 2a to reasonable legislation. This was important to point out in the thread about property right vs. RKBA, because most were making the “it Shall not be infringed� argument. Now we can see that most people believe it can be infringed if the infringement is reasonable.

I believe it is reasonable to infringe on 2a for the purposes of property rights. I am not telling you that you can not carry…you just can not carry on my property…this is reasonable. If you feel your 2a is more important than doing business with me on my property…then you have the free will to choose to go somewhere else to do business. This is a fair compromise because I get to keep my property rights and you get to keep your 2a rights.

[srothstein]

I agree that the question asked was truly what is the line of where you call reasonable. I recognized it that way, and answered based on that.

And I do not see someone exercising their property rights as an infringement on my 2A rights. If you own the property, you get to say what happens on it. I get to decide if it is more important to me to carry or to enter your property for whatever reason. I also believe that the 2A is a limit on government and not on individuals, as is most of the Constitution. For example, you can restrict what religion is practiced in your house and it does not violate my rights. And these property rights do not change if you invite me onto your property as a guest, or as a member of the public.

But, government owned property should not be considered as private property. The government should not be able to legally restrict my carrying of a weapon.

[pt145ss]

I agree that the question asked was truly what is the line of where you call reasonable. I recognized it that way, and answered based on that.

And I do not see someone exercising their property rights as an infringement on my 2A rights. If you own the property, you get to say what happens on it. I get to decide if it is more important to me to carry or to enter your property for whatever reason. I also believe that the 2A is a limit on government and not on individuals, as is most of the Constitution. For example, you can restrict what religion is practiced in your house and it does not violate my rights. And these property rights do not change if you invite me onto your property as a guest, or as a member of the public.

But, government owned property should not be considered as private property. The government should not be able to legally restrict my carrying of a weapon.

Excellent....

[frankie_the_yankee]

Steve,

I generally find that you take a thoughtful and level-headed approach to most issues. That's why I can't fathom your position on this one.

Can't you see that when you get to WMD's, (nukes especially) the basic philosophical rationale underlying RKBA, self defense, etc. simply breaks down? If WMD's were accessible to the public, or to anyone with the money to buy them, the jihadists would use that avenue to destroy us.

Do I know this for sure? No. But the consequences are so devestating that I'm perfectly willing to rely on my best estimates derived from both inductive and deductive logic. Especially when there is an overwhelming world-wide consensus that agrees with that analysis. (Referring here to various nuclear non-proliferation treaties, etc.)

Now, is there a technical legal argument one could make that the 2A prevents the government from regulating such things? Well, there might be. But forgive me if I say unabashedly that it doesn't matter one bit to me. If it was ever necessary (It won't be.) I would support a constitutional amendment saying that the 2A does not apply to nukes and WMD's (don't want to quibble over exact wording or definitions. Those things could always be worked out.).

And of course our measures to restrict these weapons are not and can never be perfect. But it does not follow that we still shouldn't do everything we can to make it as difficult as possible. Who knows? Maybe they'll blow us all up in the end. But we don't have to make it easy for them.