Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[Flogger23m]

IMO, I think it counts small arms only.


I think SBR/SBS and suppressors should be allowed, but a little harder to get. But the law needs to be refined more.


I don't think anyone should be able to buy explosives or anything like that.

[kcbrown]

WTF - Are you a Bradyite?

.

Yes, I must be, because clearly anyone who doesn't believe in the inherent right to own (and, of course, LOC) strategic nuclear weapons is a Bradyite...




If you read what I've said you'll see me arguing both ends of this. I think the citizenry needs some sort of access to heavy weaponry if the 2nd Amendment is to serve the purpose for which it was placed into the Constitution, but at the same time unfettered access presents a set of dangers that most people would regard as being well beyond reason (economics deals with most of that currently but as I said, we're talking about principles here, so falling back on economics to save your position is, essentially, a cop-out).

I'm of a libertarian bent, but I live in the real world, too. And in the real world, there exist crazy people who would see the entire world burn if they could. It's obviously idiotic to give up all your rights just to account for what such people could do, but it's also equally idiotic to make it reasonably possible for such people to get their hands on very large scale weaponry. And if strategic nukes aren't big enough for you, then expand it to include planet-busting weaponry, whenever such weaponry is developed.

Everyone has their own comfort zone beyond which they'll agree the 2nd Amendment should no longer apply. How big that zone is depends on the individual, and I think for a lot of people it's far too small (mainly because they have no idea how to properly assess risks). But I suspect it's finite for nearly everyone.

[wash]

The bill of rights NEVER SAID small arms and early settlers of America brought a WMD with them, smallpox.

Don't "interpret".

The original intent is easily verified, our founding fathers wanted us ready for a war. Not a single battle, not self defense, a war.

A law abiding person should be able to legally buy any arms (small or large) they want.

[Meplat]

You may be comforted by the fact that deterrence does not require the possession of enough force to prevail, only enough to inflict more damage than your enemy is willing to suffer.

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.

[GuyW]

Waco was a federal law enforcement issue, NOT a military response.

You missed the tanks, huh?
.

[GuyW]

I see no reason for explosive ordnance such as grenades, anti-personel or anti-tank mines in civilian hands.

Of course the Founders wouldn't have wanted citizens to have the capability to take out tanks or large numbers of government soldiers....they insisted on one-on-one duels for honor's sake...
.

[The Director]

I suppose to fully answer the question you'd have to ask yourself what the biggest "arm" was around the year 1776.

On land: Cannon, Howitzers, and Mortars. That's it. Those are the "nukes" of the day.

At sea: 42 gun 3 masted ship. As the name implied, a ship of 42 guns, the biggest of which were 12 pound smoothbores. The Bonhomme Richard was the "Nimitz class" of it's day, the most powerful weapon in existence in the American arsenal. It should also be noted that this ship was vastly smaller than what you'd call a "ship of the line" thatthe brits had. America had no ships of the line, our largest was the frigate I just mentioned.

That's the sense of scale of destructive capability. A frigate like Bonhomme Richard could pull into a harbor, level a broadside at a town, and probably kill a bunch of people (if caught unawares) and level some houses. That's the extent of the most powerful weapon in America at the time.

It should be noted that this ship was owned by the Continental Navy and I don't believe "the people" had anything that could match it for one reason......cost of ownership.

[rolo]

You missed the tanks, huh?
.

No, I didn't. Who were they being driven by? I guess you missed the FBI badges and agent LBV's.

[wash]

Of course the Founders wouldn't have wanted citizens to have the capability to take out tanks or large numbers of government soldiers....they insisted on one-on-one duels for honor's sake...
.

The American revolution was one of the first guerrilla wars. It was fought more by snipers and sneak attack than traditional battles.

All was fair.

[Sarkoon]

Returning to the main topic, I think the fair RKBA-protecting delineation can be made... firearms are 'point' weapons. Cannon, grenade, explosive warheads, etc. are "large area" weapons.

I read through this thread before posting to make sure that no one else had already took this stance, but I see that I am not alone.

I draw the civilian-legal line between fully-automatic weapons and grenades for the precise reason that rifles (even fully-automatic ones) are point weapons and you as the shooter have specific and direct control over each and every bullet that leaves the barrel - and as such you are responsible and accountable for each of those bullets. With proper training you should be able to pick out enemies from friendlies in a room and leave the good guys unharmed. However with a grenade there are pieces of shrapnel flying in random directions that you have no direct control over. Once that explosive device leaves your hand any number of factors can change (people can move into or out of harms way or the explosive could roll somewhere unintended) and you now have absolutely no control over it.

So, I believe anything that can be accurately aimed at a specific target without harming others standing nearby should be legal. It's the shooter's responsibility to pull the trigger at a speed that he remains in control of each bullet leaving the weapon. But how fast he pulls the trigger, or if he decides to use full-auto, is for the shooter to decide.

[Mitch]

I see no reason for explosive ordnance such as grenades, anti-personel or anti-tank mines in civilian hands.

To use against a tyrannical government?

[rolo]

Mitch, by the time there is a need to use anti-tank mines, tow missiles and grenades against a tyrannical government, it will be a Civil War between two or more Governments and their militaries.

Anything else is a terrorist cell. It's about the will of the people and the legality of the revolution. If you don't have the will of the people you have nothing but extremism. Look at the OKC bombers and associated goons. They thought they were using appropriate force against a tyrannical government.

[KCM222]

I feel it’s reasonable to say that as a price for having a standing army, the average citizen defers their right to own “area” type weapons.

I feel this way because of the huge benefits of having a standing army and because I think a revolution would be nearly impossible without the support of the armed forces (even if rockets, nukes, etc were available for private purchase).

Any rebellion would be quashed by the armed forces before it could gain significant momentum to be effective, even with equal equipment, given the discrepancy of training and overall organization. A sizeable portion of the armed services would have to “join the cause” to be able to take on the government and its remaining forces.

This is the way it should be. The necessity of requiring a revolt of that magnitude would likely ensure that the revolt is justifiable.

[wash]

That standing army argument is just dumb.

Should German Jews have lost their right to own guns because Hitler gave them the SS?

[rolo]

Threads over, it's been Godwinned. Thanks Wash.