Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct. That said I would not consider a nuke or chemical or bio as an arm, but as a device.
I agree. Really the difference is something that targets specifically instead of areas.
At the time of the signing of the bill of rights anyone could own the most powerful weapons of the day (war ships and cannon). Most people didn't because of cost, but most of the cannon used in the revolutionary war was either privately owned or captured from the British.
Pistol? Shotgun? Rifle? Single shot? Semi-Auto? Full-Auto? Howitzer? RPG?
Or does it mean anything needed to defend yourself? Even if it is just your fists and feet??
A knife? Club? Bat? Hatchet? Shove? Pitchfork? Rolling Pin?
Who gets to define what I can use to defend my and my families well being?? From dangerous predator animals, other individuals with intent to harm or steal, or my overbearing tyrannical government, that comes after me because I will not abide by the oppressed freedoms, liberty and gold they wish to take from me.
My creator, gave me the ability to protect myself. Only government made of men, can take that ability away, so I can no longer effectively protect myself from that very government, much less the predators.
Nuclear devices, chemical weapons, biological weapons?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I was just trying to figure out what the limit to "arms" is.
In the US vs. Miller(1939) it was ruled by the SCOTUS that "the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
I think it's general and would include weapons for hunting or defense of yourself and your family. It gets tricky when you go beyond the personal firearms. Right to bear is unabridged... what about tanks, missiles, jets? If you could afford it, do you have a right to bar that 'arm?'
I think it's general and would include weapons for hunting or defense of yourself and your family. It gets tricky when you go beyond the personal firearms. Right to bear is unabridged... what about tanks, missiles, jets? If you could afford it, do you have a right to bar that 'arm?'
You chose a fairly crappy way to bring up a very valid question.
Let's discuss.
First, we know that the Bill Of Rights is not absolute.
The First gives you freedom of speech; however, the government can sanction me if I called up a potential employer you were interviewing with and told them you were a convicted pedophile when I knew that was not the case. It also give freedom to exercise religion, but you can't commit human sacrifices.
If you point a gun and start shooting at a FBI agent, you aren't going to be afforded any due process under the Fifth when that agent of government returns fire and takes your life.
Essentially, your rights end when your actions infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of others.
I'd argue that the nature of a nuclear weapon in terms of the danger it poses, even untouched, is such that it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others. Unlike a stray bullet that has the possibility of negatively impacting bystanders, radiation released into the atmosphere will have an impact on others. If a bullet gets buried in the dirt and left for a hundred years, it will most likely become inert while if you buried a nuclear weapon in the dirt, it will eventually become a serious and lethal hazard.
When a crazy survivalist dies in his cave with a stock pile of automatic weapons and a tank and is not found for a century, nothing ever happens. If he has a nuclear weapon, something very bad will eventually happen if it is left untouched.
Therefore, I think the nature of a nuclear bomb precludes it from being acceptable under the Second.
To begin with, freedom of speech is absolute. You may well be held to legal sanction as a result of your exercise of that right. However, there are no prior restraints to freedom of speech in The US.
Were you to actively engage in a human sacrifice, you would not be sanctioned for whatever religious beliefs you may hold. Rather, you would face criminal charges such as kidnapping and murder. Those charges would be present whether or not you claim to have a religious basis for your actions.
I don't disagree with you in regards to nuclear weapons. However, therein lies the crux of the debate regarding the OP's interpretation of The Second Amendment: absolutism vs. regulation.
Either The Second Amendment is absolute, as is The First Amendment; or one can construct an argument which favors regulation which places prior restriction on the personal possession of some devices or substances which meet the definition of "arms".
If one supports the restriction of some arms, then it is only logical to recognize that others may postulate a longer or shorter list of arms which should be exempted from personal possession.
If the argument is one which is based upon the infringement of the rights of other individuals; then it is necessary to point out that more innocent Americans died from malevolent gun use last year, than have died throughout history from the combined use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Of course, nuclear weapons are not readily available, and they don't lend themselves well to the avoidance of collateral damage. On the other hand, many biological and chemical toxins can be relatively easily obtained or manufactured. Depending upon the user, they can also be strategically implemented--at least as accurately as an automatic weapon.
To begin with, freedom of speech is absolute. You may well be held to legal sanction as a result of your exercise of that right. However, there are no prior restraints to freedom of speech in The US.
Were you to actively engage in a human sacrifice, you would not be sanctioned for whatever religious beliefs you may hold. Rather, you would face criminal charges such as kidnapping and murder. Those charges would be present whether or not you claim to have a religious basis for your actions.
I don't disagree with you in regards to nuclear weapons. However, therein lies the crux of the debate regarding the OP's interpretation of The Second Amendment: absolutism vs. regulation.
Either The Second Amendment is absolute, as is The First Amendment; or one can construct an argument which favors regulation which places prior restriction on the personal possession of some devices or substances which meet the definition of "arms".
If one supports the restriction of some arms, then it is only logical to recognize that others may postulate a longer or shorter list of arms which should be exempted from personal possession.
If the argument is one which is based upon the infringement of the rights of other individuals; then it is necessary to point out that more innocent Americans died from malevolent gun use last year, than have died throughout history from the combined use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Of course, nuclear weapons are not readily available, and they don't lend themselves well to the avoidance of collateral damage. On the other hand, many biological and chemical toxins can be relatively easily obtained or manufactured. Depending upon the user, they can also be strategically implemented--at least as accurately as an automatic weapon.
Neither the 1st or 2nd A is absolute, been proven time and time again.
Neither the 1st or 2nd A is absolute, been proven time and time again.
Give me an example of prior government restraint regarding The First Amendment. Which specific words or statements are summarily prohibited under penalty of criminal law?
Give me an example of prior government restraint regarding The First Amendment. Which specific words or statements are summarily prohibited under penalty of criminal law?
Yell fire in a crowed theatre or sporting event, then get back to us, if you can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
