Where do you draw the line & why?

J

junkpile

New member
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I believe that the Second Amendment was written in keeping with themes of Federalism. Federal Courts, Congress, and the President each constantly struggle for more power, the individual struggle of each being perpetually blocked by the struggles of the other two branches. The endeavors of the Senate (appointed by the State Legislatures) being countermanded by the undertakings of a House of Representatives elected by the people. Outside of the struggles of the Legislature with itself, and of the Federal Government with itself, the Federal Government jockeys with the States for power, the States themselves, if well-developed, having similar systems.

In sum, every governmental official fighting every other governmental official/body for power, each offering the others a check on that battle. All the men who desire great power and go into politics having their aims frustrated by all the other men. Furthermore, each man wanting to be elected, he must compete with other men in the hearts of the populace. In this free market of ideas, competion will allow the buyer (voters) to properly maintain their freedom.

It is in this very vein I feel the Second Amendment fits. An armed populace is a check on governmental power. Had the adults of the 12 million people Hitler killed all been armed, Germany simply could not have murdered them all, having only only 16 million people serving in the army between 1939 to 1945. Mao Tse Tung, in his Little Red Book, once said "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun". I think he was right, and I believe the founders wanted the people to have this trump card, should any small cadre of government officials get out of order.

It is from this point on, having offered my preamble which I believe serves as my own guide for answering this question, that I ask you: when it comes to the Second Amendment and the arms it protects, what types of weapons do you believe are inclusive to arms, and what not? Men should be able to have only blackpowder rifles? Or only modern hunting weapons? Pistols too? "Black rifles"/assault weapons? Full automatic weapons? Artillery? Chemical gas? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons?

At some point there, I think most of us draw the line. Where do you draw yours? What do you think should be allowed to man? To engage the extremes, I believe blackpowder rifles serve no check on the power of the Government's weapons, while biological and nuclear weapons give the individual crazy too much power. (Noting that there is no doubt if he was not blocked by Federal Power, a man like Bill Gates could buy an atomic weapon from North Korea, as even boy scouts (reprinted) and college students (last 3 paragraphs) can and have make/made breeder reactors.) Indeed, as an addendum, let me simply say that whether or not the framers believed originally that all weapons should be allowed to be borne, the advent of nuclear and biological weapons offered a paradigm shift the likes of which they could not have dreamed. "Civilization crushers". With that in mind, I note that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and even if the framers did not mean to exclude any type of weapon, whether or not you believe we should, on your own bases for why you believe we have the Second Amendment.
 
There are laws in nature that superceed laws of man. The government can outlaw guns, but I highly doubt they can collect a large percentage of them. Same goes for explosives and many biological agents (chlorine gas). I guess that takes me to my argument. I support the most of the current laws regarding gun control. I think the tax for NFA weapons should be repealed, and silencers should be handed out like ear plugs. Other than that change I am OK with the paperwork. It can be diverted in a time of civil war, just as individuals get around the rules now. The capacity to revolt is not affected in meaningful way.
 
If I understand you, you'd draw the line where we are at now, then? No automatic weapons, (or no "new" automatic weapons) but no banning of .50 rifles, "assault" weapons? (I.e. draw the line around automatic weapons)?
 
Yes, but I'm not close minded and I'm open to meaningful discussion. I think the tax and paperwork on silencers is asinine.
 
Junkpile,

First, good post with regards to putting forth background for your question. Nicely done.

As to drawing the line, that's a more a matter of opinion.

Historically, the discussions did include all military weaponry as evidenced by this published statement in 1788;

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier , are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
-- Tench Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788 [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
That's a pretty bold statement in light of what modern military capabilities have become.

My opinion (yours will vary of course) is based in the idea of the Militiamen and Minutemen concept. Weapons would be those which an ordinary, physically fit man can carry into battle as an ordinary infantryman.

To me, this excludes the following types of weapons;
* Crew-served weaponry - Mortars, artillery, tanks, planes
* High explosive munitions - grenades, rockets, nukes, etc.
* Biological munitions - Anthrax, Nerve agents, etc.
* Indiscriminate weapons - Mines, an x-ray laser, etc.

My opinion, WRT the above exceptions, is that the these types of munitions do deteriorate over time and can become unstable. Poor storage conditions accelerate it. It would be imprudent to allow unregulated storage of, say, grenades, poisons or artillery munitions in residential areas.

With those exceptions, my basic premise is if you can carry it, you can own it.

A .50 BMG and tripod can be carried by one man (not easily) but it can be done. A .30 BMG is a bit lighter.

Want an M240? Okay.
HK G3? Sure
M14 or M16? Go ahead.
AK-47 or AK-74? Fine.
Glock 38? Go for it.

Misuse it, you lose it. Maybe lose all of 'em.
Start blasting in a mall or public place? You're fair game.

Registration & Fees?
No fees. Registration is a postcard that lists the type (handgun, rifle, shotgun) and caliber (e.g. 7.62x39mm) and your zip code. That's it. Anything more is voluntary. This allows any government agency to sum up ammo requirements by zip-code areas (if they were to properly supply training & combat ammo).
 
I agree, for the most part.

My question centers around automatic weapons, in this case. With an M240, one could easily kill hundreds in a matter of seconds from the flatbed of a truck at a crowded rally. I begin to classify them as a weapon of great destructive potential.

That said, I'm very conflicted on the matter. One could say the same thing about ammonium nitrate and fertilizer bombs, (the materials of) which are not nearly as closely watched as automatic weapons.

I do like your minuteman concept, I'll think it over, as I believe it provides an interesting paradigm, one I hadn't considered (viz., one that allows variability of interpretation while maintaining a relatively unshakable/clear general definition).
 
The answer is not in the type of machine, but the type of person. We have to understand that this country was founded for LIBERTY not freedom. Freedom requires nothing liberty requires responcibilty of the people. A person chooses what the machine does not the machine. The concern should be about how to get society back to being WE minded instead of ME minded.
 
Where do I draw the line? The way i see it, the second amendment gives us a right to own the same small arms that soldiers typically use. Handguns and rifles of all types, including full auto rifles, sub-machine guns, and "sniper" weapons, bayonets, etc. I'm not sure how I'd feel about the general public owning things like grenades, but with proper training, it wouldnt be so bad.

I dont think we have a right to own artillery peices, missles, rockets, bio/chem weapons, and deffinately no nukes.
 
I read the second amendment in a fairly liberal fashion.

That is to say, every weapon that a Marine squad would go into combat with, is a weapon that I, as part of the citizen-militia, should be able to purchase.

Um, that's in addition to the normal hunting arms and self-defense arms that I (can) own now.

Yeah... I feel comfortable with that line-in-the-sand. But that's probably because I'm just some hick, living out in the boonies, who trusts my neighbors (who are mostly immigrants - legal or otherwise) with the same things.
 
Opinion

Since the basic premise is where to draw the line, and which weapons that we, as (unorganised) militia members should have free access (no legal restrictions) to, I would like to bring up a couple of points.

Biological weapons have been in existence and use for centuries. What differs today is the effectiveness of the agents, not the principle. Launching a diseased animal carcass over the town wall with a catapult is biological warfare.

Artillery/explosives - cannon were owned by private citizens, and even ships of war (the most powerful weapon system of the era), all were OK with our govt at one time. I see no reason why this should not be today. You can own a tank today. You just cannot own the main gun ammo or the machineguns without Fed approval.

Chemical weapons - Our world is filled with chemical weapons, because our world is filled with chemicals. There is no separating the two, other than the use to which they are put. Hazardous materials abound, the only thing that makes them into a weapon is a specifically constructed delivery system, and the intent to use such to cause harm.

Nuclear weapons are something else again. To me they do not fall into the same category as explosives. The fact that atomics are both hugely powerful explosives and extreme toxins at the same time places them in a category all their own, and I do believe justifies their exclusion from the category of militia weaponry.

Now we come to the line, and where we would wish it drawn. Certainly where it exists today should be considered an absolute minimum. NO further restrictions are acceptable.

One of the criteria I would use to determine suitable militia weapons is targeting. Weapons capable of being targeted sufficiently accurately as to be discriminate should be allowed. In other words, area weapons (Nuclear, Bio, and Chem) should not be considered militia suitable.

Artillery can be targeted solely against troops in the field and so should be allowed. Machine guns, grenades, mines, and mortars as well. Tanks even fall within those boundaries.

I am not suggesting that these things should be able to be purchased by blind mail order, or e-bay, or across the counter with no paperwork or background checks. Rather that the Govt should conduct those investigations to determine that the purchaser is a stable individual, with no criminal record. And when the determination is made, then approval must follow as a "shall issue" requirement.

I also believe that willful misuse of militia weapons (such as the machinegunning of a crowd) should merit the ultimate punishment. Swiftly, and without appeal. I would even condone public torture prior to execution for a case such as this. But that's just me:D

Switzerland proves that it is not impossible for a nation to be at peace with a low rate of violent crime while virtually every household has a fully functional machinegun and ammunition. It is simply the will and the responsibility of the people that ensure the safety of all.

Unfortunately our society is riddled with irresponsible individuals, and some of them are even in govt service. In fact, our entertainment glorifies violence, and our justice system does it's level best to see that violent criminals are returned to society.

There are, however, individuals who as a group have demonstrated a stability and trustworthiness far above the general population. These are the people who have legally owned machineguns. Since 1934, (as far as I know) there has been only one violent crime involving a legal machinegun, by it registered owner, and that individual was also a police officer. (anybody out there have the actual details of this case?)

A similar situation exists with CCW holders. Only a very very small percentage of them commit violent crimes. The people who submit to the govt requirements are not the ones who commit violent crimes.

Personally, I see no reason why we, as individuals who have undergone background investigation by the govt, and have not been deemed a danger to ourselves or others should not be left alone to pursue our hobbies as we see fit. Until and unless we act in a manner to endanger others, we should not have to constantly prove ourselves every time we desire to purchase another gun. And if we do act in a criminal manner (by harming the innocent), there should be severe punishment.

This is my dream. This is liberty. To act as I will, to own what I will, harming no other. How could this be wrong?
 
I would start with nothing that is outlawed by international treaties. ie nukes, chemical and bio weapons, mines etc.
 
Smenkhare, remember the Hague Convention of 1899:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
Click to expand...

Which is, if you (I?) recall, why FMJs came about. Our and your militaries, unless they are opposed by a military that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, cannot, (and do not, in my understanding) use hollowpoints. My concern with this line is it may end up being arbitrary, as in the case of hollowpoints. (For what it's worth, as an interesting loophole-effect that some militaries get through this convention by using non-median center-of-mass bullets that will yaw when the enter the body). This is part of the (disputed) premise for the 5.7mm round (associated with FN Herstal's Five-seveN). I don't know if HPs are legal in AUS, but they are normal self-defense rounds here, and to make them illegal would be an shocking thought (to me, at least).

Tony, your point is well-made, viz., weapons don't kill people, people kill people and that as a corollary, we need be concentrated on the person and not his tool. This line of thinking, I believe, opens up two resolutions. The first is to narrowly pick out the people who are problems. The other is to broadly attempt to make everyone the type of person you believe belongs in a free state.

I think the latter is doomed to faliure. In the foreseeable future, there will always be criminals, or men who go off the deep end, men whose passion overrides their reason. There always have been, even in the most strict, collective-identity, societies (Tokugawa Japan suffices, I submit), such men. Indeed, all one needs is an undiagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic to lead to an exception. With small arms, this may lead to a few deaths. With large-capacity destructive devices, a small multitude of such error can be a civilization-killer. The former, in the calculus of freedom, is acceptable, that is, some me will die in the course of our possessing liberties/freedoms. (Just as people in small cars have their likelihood of a lethal crash go up each time someone who will drive near them gets a big car). That the expected deaths of a policy goes up is not a reason to not do it, if the tradeoff is freedom, I posit. Nonetheless, and back to the point, I suggest that the complete indoctrination/education of a society as being responsible with their weapons is, at this point of time, infeasible if not impossible. All it takes is a mental disorder to develop in someone who already has one such weapon. As I think this was your major point, I'd be interested to hear feedback.

The other possibility is that we go about finding what people do have the capability/responsibility to handle these firearms. Yet again, I don't think this is a viable solution, as I think we have, among other things, a massive self-selection issue. That is, the probability that a man who wants to purchase a nuclear weapon does not want to purchase it idly is vastly higher than the chance that he is simply purchasing it because it is "cool". While I don't think this holds for "small" arms (such as M240's or M60's or M249's), I do think it holds for something like the ebolavirus genus. I further think this solution has the same problem as the previous one, that madness can occur after the obtaining of these weapons.

In sum, while I recognize and agree that people kill people, it is the degree to which they are able to kill people as relating to the degree to which they can rise up and crush tyranny, is the question. (For me, derived from my standards for the populace being armed). Nuclear weapons fall afoul of such a calculus, while SAWs likely do not. As a final thought, could not your suggestion merely be applied to our leaders? (This is if and only if you accept my original premise for firearms). If the purpose of firearms is to safeguard the populace, then we could, if we can stabilize one's nature to be benevolent, simply make our politicians/leaders lack the malignant nature that requires firearms, no?
 
Last edited:
Working with the 80/20 rule, I would take on the simple part of this question first. I don't know what today's count is, but I think it is something like 2,400 firearm laws in the USA. I think it is safe to say there are at least 2,000 too many. This is one place where GOA has it all over the NRA.

To directly address some of the question, M16s, M14s, BARs and rifles like that should be just as available to us as shotguns. Full-auto fire is rarely as effective as aimed fire anyway.

Suppressors are more than accepted for unfettered civilian use in other countries they are EXPECTED of polite gun users. Even anti-gun England expects their shotgunners to keep the noise down.

Now as to who can be trusted with tanks, howitzers, Cobra gunships, fighter-bombers and NBC devices .. well, I know who CAN'T be trusted: politicians. I don't know exactly where that leaves us, but the most immoral and dishonest people in this country get elected to office and we put them in charge of the most destructive devices ever invented by mankind. I may not know what is right, but this is flat STUPID.

I would be a whole lot more comfortable with the original design of the USA. For those who have forgotten, that was a federation of individual states. Local and regional militias were responsible for defense and COULD unite under the Commander-In-Chief for common defense IF they felt threatened. A STANDING ARMY was viewed as the greatest threat to liberty and freedom... and probably should still be so viewed.

The absence of a strong central government would make the USA less of a threat to the liberty of people of this world - thus less of a target for freedom-fighters. The absence of a single head would make us an unattractive target tactically as well. The Green Mountain Boys, Tennesee Volunteers, Militia of Montana and all the other local and regional defense organizations would provide for the perceived needs of each region (Nebraska probably wouldn't have much of a navy).
 
I would be a whole lot more comfortable with the original design of the USA. For those who have forgotten, that was a federation of individual states. Local and regional militias were responsible for defense and COULD unite under the Commander-In-Chief for common defense IF they felt threatened. A STANDING ARMY was viewed as the greatest threat to liberty and freedom... and probably should still be so viewed.

The absence of a strong central government would make the USA less of a threat to the liberty of people of this world - thus less of a target for freedom-fighters. The absence of a single head would make us an unattractive target tactically as well. The Green Mountain Boys, Tennesee Volunteers, Militia of Montana and all the other local and regional defense organizations would provide for the perceived needs of each region (Nebraska probably wouldn't have much of a navy).
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. Ya get a big +1 from me.
 
Where do we start? Well the place to start is at home with your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, thier friends as you stand up by words and deeds that show your words are true. Each one of US has the power to influence the world around us, and by doing so we help change the society. The schools are no longer schools but training centers for PC ideals. I will continue to speak up and teach all that I can, but my world is limited. Now if one person in N.C. is standing up, and then someone in Utah, then some one in Washington, then some one else some where else we do change things a little at a time.
A person who uses a machine for bad needs to be held accountable for thier actions, not blame society, family, any substance they have taken. Yes there will always be those who are bad to evil people, they are the ones to be punished for thier actions. We can't prevent evil from being evil, we can only punish them for thier deeds. Preventing good people from doing or having some thing because some one might some day do some bad thing is wrong, just as wrong is good people doing nothing. Laziness is are greatest enemy to ourselves. Actions can cost you time, friends, maybe a little money, but without you being involved and willing to do what you can then what some one wants is what wiil be because they are willing to do what needs done. Those who want Liberty must be willing to work to secure that Liberty.
 
Looking back over time I remember when the gun rags offered the Lahti 20mm guns and 60mm mortars at attractive prices with no restrictions. I don't recall the misuse of any of these items. One could also order a 37mm AT gun and many other interesting ordnance items.

I know quite a few folks, myself included, who own tanks, jet fighters, bombers, machine guns, artillery and explosives. None of the folks I know ever got in trouble or did anything stupid with all this stuff.

I would probably draw the line at biological, chemical and nuclear devices.

Once the National registry was closed in '86, can you imagine the number of machine guns floating around unregistered. With no mechanism availble for amnesty or the ability to do a Form 1, I must believe a bunch of folks have put together quite a few guns outside the law.

I am for dumping the existing laws for the most part. Prohibition has never worked.
 
Well the place to start is at home with your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, thier friends as you stand up by words and deeds that show your words are true.
Click to expand...

Be honest? Sure, but honesty has left the capitol. Grass roots are important, but by the time that takes any affect it may very well be too late.

The schools are no longer schools but training centers for PC ideals.
Click to expand...

Really? That has not been my experience. What makes you say that?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I agree with most of your sentiments, but I don't see a plan that can accomplish goals faster than rights can be removed. Maybe the NRA is the answer, but many individuals don't think they are representing our interests well.
 
I know that the way I do is not as fast as the media or the organizations that the Anti- Bill of Rights groups use but it is what I can do. The N.R.A and other groups help but also hurt. John Q. Public sends in thier dues and maybe a little more then never reads the mountians of mail that they send out, but they have done thier share by sending in thier money. Paying dues to any group is just a start but you have to involve youself, that is what most are not willing to do.

Public schools; just ask a child what was taught about why the Britsh went to Lexington or Concord. Ask what they learned about the Federalist Papers,
ask what the purpose of the Supreme Court is. Read the N.E.A.'s web site as goals. Look at the survey forms children are ask to fill out at school without parents knowledge. They are taught that self-defense is wrong. I can go on but If you have a child in the schools go in and ask for the "Parents Bill of Rights" yes it does exsist, but see how easy it is to get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top