I'm guessing that had the Founders envisioned a device like a nuclear weapon, they would have explicitly excluded that from the definition of "arms". It's possible they would have banned the government from having them too. It would be horrifying to them.
Maybe. But if that’s the case, horrifying weapons of war already existed back then and were not excluded.
I’m not loving the thought of millions of hicks like me with nukes, of course. But a “well regulated militia”? Why not? If that’s what it takes to overthrow a tyrannical government, so be it.
I get your point and agree with the concept, and obviously if a war erupts between the people and it's government all bets are off and what is legal no longer has meaning. But nuclear weapons are in a class of their own. They are strategic weapons employed not against governments but against nations. I cannot see any use for them in a revolution.
"Arms" are actually well defined in their era. Something one man can carry and operate. Designed to hit one target, usually human rather than materiel. Differentiated from artillery. And yet, certain Congressmen had cannons on their porch, and fired them in anger. Ship owners had cannons, which they needed against pirates and proved quite useful as a mercenary US navy.
I'd be cool with sticking with this definition. It brings up the question of TOW / RPG and such; drawing the line of some of that rather than select fire should be the furthest we even consider comprising on without stacking bodies.
I think all weapons should be allowed, with the exception of strategic destructive weapons, which have no role to play in a revolution and are explicitly the domain of standing armies and used only in major global wars anyways.
Things like artillery and armor and fighter aircraft and the like should be available to the People, but specifically to militias. Basically to prevent a nut from getting their hands on a massively destructive piece of military hardware and murdering hundreds of people before an equally armed force can stop them.
Small arms however should have ZERO limitations. I am quite sure small arms is precisely what the Founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment.
Interesting definition of terms here. We agree "small arms," any typical gun, "shall not be infringed." Criminals / background checks? That gets dicey, but was letting that in what opened the door to the rest of the bs?
What I've read was the founder's intent, was for people to be able to stop a rogue General before he was able to reinforce with artillery. Just to buy time to get help from the non-rogue military. That it was never their intent to have the people be able to stand up to a full army, including artillery.
They also prohibited a standing army.
The unorganized militia is every able bodied male between 17 and 45, and females in the NG (or is it in the military?) To separate this from "militias," is to restrict things to NG. Our NG do have artillery armor and fighter aircraft. I would prefer seeing all obsolete military aircraft maintained and operated by NG. In event of war on domestic soil, the sheer numbers would make an amazing difference if anybody ever wore down our latest and best birds.
I have read opinions here that our NG is cucked and would turn on us. That's a discomfiting thought ...
After my 6 years in the Navy, I served in the NG. It's not "cucked" as far as I could tell. It's mostly former active duty guys anyways. And those who aren't might as well have been active duty thanks to Obama and Bush's wars.
As for small arms, I don't see a constitutional argument as to why a felon who has done his time cannot have one. Just because you committed crimes in the past does not mean you forfeit your rights to defend yourself. And if you killed someone you shouldn't be allowed out of prison or a death sentence anyways.
We've created new classes of people through ridiculous leniency in the criminal justice system. And the Constitution does not recognize new classes of people with limited rights.
If artillery and combat helicopters are legal you bet big tech and the like will have them not the people. What volunteers corps can afford heavy advanced weapons.
I'm guessing that had the Founders envisioned a device like a nuclear weapon, they would have explicitly excluded that from the definition of "arms". It's possible they would have banned the government from having them too. It would be horrifying to them.
Maybe. But if that’s the case, horrifying weapons of war already existed back then and were not excluded.
I’m not loving the thought of millions of hicks like me with nukes, of course. But a “well regulated militia”? Why not? If that’s what it takes to overthrow a tyrannical government, so be it.
I get your point and agree with the concept, and obviously if a war erupts between the people and it's government all bets are off and what is legal no longer has meaning. But nuclear weapons are in a class of their own. They are strategic weapons employed not against governments but against nations. I cannot see any use for them in a revolution.
That’s a great point. I was looking at them as simply weapons, but you’re right. Actually using them in your own country would be dumb.
But everything else I’d be fine with.
The revolution will not be televised. Or nuclear.
Look harder its there
"Arms" are actually well defined in their era. Something one man can carry and operate. Designed to hit one target, usually human rather than materiel. Differentiated from artillery. And yet, certain Congressmen had cannons on their porch, and fired them in anger. Ship owners had cannons, which they needed against pirates and proved quite useful as a mercenary US navy.
I'd be cool with sticking with this definition. It brings up the question of TOW / RPG and such; drawing the line of some of that rather than select fire should be the furthest we even consider comprising on without stacking bodies.
I think all weapons should be allowed, with the exception of strategic destructive weapons, which have no role to play in a revolution and are explicitly the domain of standing armies and used only in major global wars anyways.
Things like artillery and armor and fighter aircraft and the like should be available to the People, but specifically to militias. Basically to prevent a nut from getting their hands on a massively destructive piece of military hardware and murdering hundreds of people before an equally armed force can stop them.
Small arms however should have ZERO limitations. I am quite sure small arms is precisely what the Founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment.
Interesting definition of terms here. We agree "small arms," any typical gun, "shall not be infringed." Criminals / background checks? That gets dicey, but was letting that in what opened the door to the rest of the bs?
What I've read was the founder's intent, was for people to be able to stop a rogue General before he was able to reinforce with artillery. Just to buy time to get help from the non-rogue military. That it was never their intent to have the people be able to stand up to a full army, including artillery.
They also prohibited a standing army.
The unorganized militia is every able bodied male between 17 and 45, and females in the NG (or is it in the military?) To separate this from "militias," is to restrict things to NG. Our NG do have artillery armor and fighter aircraft. I would prefer seeing all obsolete military aircraft maintained and operated by NG. In event of war on domestic soil, the sheer numbers would make an amazing difference if anybody ever wore down our latest and best birds.
I have read opinions here that our NG is cucked and would turn on us. That's a discomfiting thought ...
After my 6 years in the Navy, I served in the NG. It's not "cucked" as far as I could tell. It's mostly former active duty guys anyways. And those who aren't might as well have been active duty thanks to Obama and Bush's wars.
As for small arms, I don't see a constitutional argument as to why a felon who has done his time cannot have one. Just because you committed crimes in the past does not mean you forfeit your rights to defend yourself. And if you killed someone you shouldn't be allowed out of prison or a death sentence anyways.
We've created new classes of people through ridiculous leniency in the criminal justice system. And the Constitution does not recognize new classes of people with limited rights.
Mines?
If artillery and combat helicopters are legal you bet big tech and the like will have them not the people. What volunteers corps can afford heavy advanced weapons.