Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[kcbrown]

I'll be blunt about my question, by stating it this way: do you believe the 2nd Amendment implies that we as individuals have the right to keep and bear strategic nuclear weapons? Never mind the physical difficulties involved -- that's something that might change with technology. This is a question about the principle.

I have my own answer to that, which is: the size of the group of people that controls a weapon needs to be about the size of the number of people that the weapon would kill, on average, if it were to be used once, if targeted at an average crowd density of people (the typical use case of the weapon would have to be considered here).

So clearly any small arm, such as a pistol, rifle (whether semiautomatic or fully automatic), etc. would be owned by individuals. I'm on the fence about automatic weapons here, since I can easily see a typical single use being targeted at an individual, but of course it could also take out a small crowd in a single use. I think someone with battlefield experience with these weapons would need to chime in here with respect to their typical use in automatic mode.

Mortars, artillery, etc. would be limited to small groups (5-10 or thereabouts), depending on the explosive power of the round. Large conventional bombs would be limited to medium sized groups (groups of a few hundred people). Tactical nukes would be limited to groups of a few thousand or more. Strategic nukes would be limited to groups of a few hundred thousand or more.


I'm certainly open to modifications of this scheme. For instance, you could argue that one should be able to keep and bear an arm designed to defend against the next order of magnitude sized group of people, so individuals could clearly own automatic weapons, while small groups could own weapons designed to target the next larger group (and yes, the size of the groups is awfully nebulous, so we'd want to somehow figure out a reasonable way to define them).


So to reiterate the question: should we, as individuals, have the right to keep and bear strategic nuclear arms?

Discuss.

[Werewolf1021]

I'll be blunt about my question, by stating it this way: do you believe the 2nd Amendment implies that we as individuals have the right to keep and bear strategic nuclear weapons? Never mind the physical difficulties involved -- that's something that might change with technology. This is a question about the principle.

I have my own answer to that, which is: the size of the group of people that controls a weapon needs to be about the size of the number of people that the weapon would kill, on average, if it were to be used once, if targeted at an average crowd density of people (the typical use case of the weapon would have to be considered here).

So clearly any small arm, such as a pistol, rifle (whether semiautomatic or fully automatic), etc. would be owned by individuals. I'm on the fence about automatic weapons here, since I can easily see a typical single use being targeted at an individual, but of course it could also take out a small crowd in a single use. I think someone with battlefield experience with these weapons would need to chime in here with respect to their typical use in automatic mode.

Mortars, artillery, etc. would be limited to small groups (5-10 or thereabouts), depending on the explosive power of the round. Large conventional bombs would be limited to medium sized groups (groups of a few hundred people). Tactical nukes would be limited to groups of a few thousand or more. Strategic nukes would be limited to groups of a few hundred thousand or more.


So to reiterate the question: should we, as individuals, have the right to keep and bear strategic nuclear arms?

Discuss.

I dont know about you, but I have no idea how to safely and effectively handle nuclear weapons. And I dont think any one person can. I have been of the frame of mind that if that person cannot operate the weapon safely/effectively then that is where the line is driven.

However if one can demonstrate proper handling and safety of a particular weapon then they should be able to have at it. If I study up on the M1 Abrams and learn all the technical stuff, I should have fair game at owning one (price on the other hand....)

[Scold]

Anyone should be able to own any single type of firearm they wish. The only limits imposed should be on weapons that are explosive on a large scale (he grenade or bigger).

[kcbrown]

I dont know about you, but I have no idea how to safely and effectively handle nuclear weapons. And I dont think any one person can. I have been of the frame of mind that if that person cannot operate the weapon safely/effectively then that is where the line is driven.

However if one can demonstrate proper handling and safety of a particular weapon then they should be able to have at it. If I study up on the M1 Abrams and learn all the technical stuff, I should have fair game at owning one (price on the other hand....)

An interesting point, but consider this: one needn't be of sound mind and judgement by the standards of society in order to be capable of operating a given weapon safely and effectively.

Which is another way of saying: the uses to which a person is prone to put the weapon matter at least as much as their competence in handling the weapon.

[TheBundo]

To the OP, I think you are crazy, and the FBI should find out who you are and watch you. We should defend our rights, but it certainly doesn't include stuff like you mentioned. So many people are ready to "die for a cause", even in a bad war, yet aren't ready to die for the right cause. The right cause could never include having personal nukes. That is just plain evil. The right cause WOULD include being killed, and NOT killing innocents yourself. If you have "faith", you'd know that, and if you don't, what difference would it make?

[kcbrown]

To the OP, I think you are crazy, and the FBI should find out who you are and watch you. We should defend our rights, but it certainly doesn't include stuff like you mentioned. So many people are ready to "die for a cause", even in a bad war, yet aren't ready to die for the right cause. The right cause could never include having personal nukes. That is just plain evil. The right cause WOULD include being killed, and NOT killing innocents yourself. If you have "faith", you'd know that, and if you don't, what difference would it make?

OK, so your argument is, basically, that individuals and groups should be limited to weapons that can only be used to target individuals, because anything more powerful than that is likely to kill innocents as well.

That's a good argument, and if personal defense were the only reason for the existence of the RKBA, then I would agree with it fully.

But the 2nd Amendment also exists to enable the people to keep the government in check, and to kick it out of power if it becomes unredeemably corrupt. This is from the words of the founders themselves, so you can't simply dismiss it out of hand. If we limit the RKBA to weapons that can only target individuals, how is that purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be satisfied in the modern age?


ETA: Note that your argument is a powerful one against the ownership of automatic weapons by individuals.

[TheBundo]

OK, so your argument is, basically, that individuals and groups should be limited to weapons that can only be used to target individuals, because anything more powerful than that is likely to kill innocents as well.

That's a good argument, and if personal defense were the only reason for the existence of the RKBA, then I would agree with it fully.

But the 2nd Amendment also exists to enable the people to keep the government in check, and to kick it out of power if it becomes unredeemably corrupt. This is from the words of the founders themselves, so you can't simply dismiss it out of hand. If we limit the RKBA to weapons that can only target individuals, how is that purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be satisfied in the modern age?

You have a point, since the First Amendment didn't envision the advent of radio, TV, and the net, yet we extend it to include that. And there were court case early on that limited the Free Press to the "established press'. Yet I worry less about thos things than 5-10 people having mortars. Maybe I shouldn't, since the misuse of the Free Press has led us to Obama, and even those before him. If you watch "The Obama Deception", you will see evidence that JFK, of all people, was the last "free" President, and that his Executive Order 11110 may have been the cause of his demise.

It's scary what we may not know. Here is the link to The Obama Deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

If you really HATE what is happening, you can't afford NOT to watch the WHOLE thing

[TheBundo]

OK, so your argument is, basically, that individuals and groups should be limited to weapons that can only be used to target individuals, because anything more powerful than that is likely to kill innocents as well.

That's a good argument, and if personal defense were the only reason for the existence of the RKBA, then I would agree with it fully.

But the 2nd Amendment also exists to enable the people to keep the government in check, and to kick it out of power if it becomes unredeemably corrupt. This is from the words of the founders themselves, so you can't simply dismiss it out of hand. If we limit the RKBA to weapons that can only target individuals, how is that purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be satisfied in the modern age?

You have a point, since the First Amendment didn't envision the advent of radio, TV, and the net, yet we extend it to include that. And there were court cases early on that limited the Free Press to the "established press'. Yet I worry less about those things than 5-10 people having mortars. Maybe I shouldn't, since the misuse of the Free Press has led us to Obama, and even those before him. If you watch "The Obama Deception", you will see evidence that JFK, of all people, was the last "free" President, and that his Executive Order 11110 may have been the cause of his demise.

It's scary what we may not know. Here is the link to The Obama Deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

If you really HATE what is happening, you can't afford NOT to watch the WHOLE thing

[Kharn]

I would move everything regulated by the NFA into the Title I catagory (4473 & NICS to purchase from a dealer, no check from private sale, no transfer tax), to include MGs, DDs, etc.
Completely unrestricted open or concealed carry of any weapon you own and locations that do not permit carry must display a large Texas 30-06-style sign. Government locations that do not permit carry must provide secure storage (courthouses, etc) for the entirety of your stay.

CBRN weapons should not be allowed by anyone but nation-states.

[Crusader]

I am 100% in support of any sort of firearms being legal to citizens. But at what point does a weapon stop being used for personal defence and start serving a purpose only to kill others? I would say that line is drawn at explosives, chemical, and biological type weapons.

So to answer your question, a Citizen should be able to own any kind of assault rifle, anti-material rifle, short-barreled shotgun, etc etc but nothing like a nuclear explosive.

[an actual gun]

I don't see the need for limits if it were my call. But we do live in a society of laws, with a government, and unfortunately it is not my call. I do not support any of the following, and again, if it were my call I wouldn't have any of it. But in today's political climate, for devil's advocate purposes, I might neutrally "accept" the following:

• Background check to insure you're not a felon? Fine.
• Wait period? They suck. No more than 3 days, ideally only one.
• Licensing to carry a firearm? I like how Vermont handles this issue, but fine. Make it speedy, make it fair, most of all make it transparent; minimal standard of training to simply carry, minimal cost. Basically I support how other free states have approached CCW and open carry.
• Machine guns? Whatever. Basically I would approach it just like I outline for CCW. Simple licensing or something to that extent, fine.

That's it. Those four, that's the only kind of limitation I would not be vehemently against.

I believe in a perfect world you should have the right to own whatever you want with no government intrusion. And I will spend the rest of my life fighting for such a right and supporting the organizations that fight for it. We should surpass our own expectations, obviously. There is no reason to put ultimate limits on our right to keep and bear arms.

I guess in fairness, my answer to this question is that I do not place any limits on our right. The above is not and should not be construed to be an argument for any of those limits. But my point is that it's kind of like losing weight. Maybe you're 200 pounds and the doctor says you really should weigh 135. Well, instead of setting your goal accordingly, you might have a "goal weight" of 150. Lose 50 pounds. No biggie, right?

That's my way of looking at it. Let's lose 50 pounds first, and then we'll worry about that last 15.

[kcbrown]

I am 100% in support of any sort of firearms being legal to citizens. But at what point does a weapon stop being used for personal defence and start serving a purpose only to kill others? I would say that line is drawn at explosives, chemical, and biological type weapons.

So to answer your question, a Citizen should be able to own any kind of assault rifle, anti-material rifle, short-barreled shotgun, etc etc but nothing like a nuclear explosive.

So, given that, what sort of "system" would you set up to enable the people to overthrow an irredeemably corrupt government?

Clearly the citizenry is going to need some kind of access to heavy weaponry in order to stand a chance.


Think about it a second and you'll see that I'm right. A sufficiently corrupt government that is fighting for its own existence against its own citizenry will have no trouble with the idea of wiping out a few hundred thousand citizens (innocent or not) at a time until the challenge to their power is eliminated. Clearly the threat to the government from the citizenry in that situation needs to be so credible that the government will surrender rather than fight. That's not possible if the government's firepower overshadows the citizenry's by many orders of magnitude, as it would if the government were the only entity with access to heavy weaponry.

[freakshow10mm]

Limits? Pretty simple.

Arms is traditionally defined as those able to be carried by a single person, or borne by his arms. If a person can't pick it up and carry it reasonably, I don't consider it an arm. It's ordnance. Also the accessories and munitions associated with such arm are treated as arms.

With that out of the way...

There are two types of people that should not be legally armed. If you are in a correctional facility serving a sentence or fleeing justice, you have no RKBA. If you are outside a department of correction facility and are not a fugitive from justice, you are a free person and should have the RKBA.

No permits, no licenses, no background checks, no FFLs needed for interstate commerce, no waiting period, no records, no taxes-rights should be tax free. This applies to fully automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, suppressors, etc.

No carry zones? Simple. The sterile areas of correctional facilities (ie if a prisoner has access to the area, no weapons) and private property. Government property should be legal to carry a firearm. The taxpayers paid for it, that means the public owns it and it's public property.

Basically revert gun laws back to the way they were before 1934 and leave them the hell alone.

[kcbrown]

I believe in a perfect world you should have the right to own whatever you want with no government intrusion. And I will spend the rest of my life fighting for such a right and supporting the organizations that fight for it. We should surpass our own expectations, obviously. There is no reason to put ultimate limits on our right to keep and bear arms.

In a perfect world, you're right: there's no need to put any limits in place on RKBA.

Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't really need such a right, but would have it anyway, and it would be a good thing because firearms are very fun to shoot!


But, alas, we don't live in a perfect world. In the real world, you have to worry about the very real possibility that, if individuals are allowed to own nuclear and other heavy weaponry, they would wind up in the hands of people that would actually use them for various nefarious reasons. I'm not even talking about people who have previous criminal records, are gang members, or any of that -- a normal individual (perhaps depressed -- and there are a lot of such people), who's having a really bad day and decides that he hates the world, would be able to cause untold harm to countless numbers of people (hundreds of thousands!) with his own personal strategic nuclear weapon.

At some point, the risks of allowing an individual to own a given weapon begin to vastly outweigh the benefits.

This is why my thinking is that the size of the group allowed to control a given type of weapon should scale with the weapon's power. The group itself would be responsible for the weapon's use and would have to make the decision of whether or not to use it. Clearly it won't do for the group in question to have a small leadership that is making all such decisions for it, because that simply concentrates the power right back into the hands of a single individual. The decision of whether or not to use the weapon belongs to the entire group.

That's my way of looking at it. Let's lose 50 pounds first, and then we'll worry about that last 15.

I definitely agree, but I think it's very important to address issues like this, because there are a lot of contradictory factors at play that matter, e.g. the need to protect innocent life versus the need to be able to toss a badly misbehaving government out on its ear.

[kcbrown]

Limits? Pretty simple.

Arms is traditionally defined as those able to be carried by a single person, or borne by his arms. If a person can't pick it up and carry it reasonably, I don't consider it an arm. It's ordnance. Also the accessories and munitions associated with such arm are treated as arms.

So the power of the arm in question is irrelevant? If the fictional "suitcase nuke" becomes a reality, is it sensible for it to be treated as an "arm" instead of as ordnance?

There are two types of people that should not be legally armed. If you are in a correctional facility serving a sentence or fleeing justice, you have no RKBA. If you are outside a department of correction facility and are not a fugitive from justice, you are a free person and should have the RKBA.

No permits, no licenses, no background checks, no FFLs needed for interstate commerce, no waiting period, no records, no taxes-rights should be tax free. This applies to fully automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, suppressors, etc.

No carry zones? Simple. The sterile areas of correctional facilities (ie if a prisoner has access to the area, no weapons) and private property. Government property should be legal to carry a firearm. The taxpayers paid for it, that means the public owns it and it's public property.

Basically revert gun laws back to the way they were before 1934 and leave them the hell alone.

I fully agree with all of this.