Nuclear "Fudds..."

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
FfNJGTFO
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:55 pm
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Contact:

Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by FfNJGTFO » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:08 am

Preface: The following is a reprint of a thread I started a while back in a different forum. Thought I'd bring it here to gather additional thoughts.

----------------------------------

I'm fighting a battle on one of my other forums. There are some who believe that RKBA should be absolute and totally unrestricted... even if it means that a private citizen, who could afford it, could possess and own such things as Nukes, SMAWs, Stingers, Cruise missiles, etc. etc. etc. They argue that it was the Founding Father's intent for "We the People" to do just that. That said, the Founding Fathers didn't have nukes etc. to deal with. If they had, I wonder if they'd have been so "approving..."

FTR, I get the concept of an "unrestricted" RKBA. And I fully support it for conventional firearms, including NFA, full auto, etc... But I'd be very nervous if I saw my neighbor building a silo in their back yard and filling it with something. Not only would I be concerned in re: their training on the weapon, but also, they just made their property (and mine by proxy) a "1st strike" target!

Does that make me a "Nuclear Fudd?"

Discuss...

[smilie=popcorn.gif]

User avatar
Racist Infidel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: Ft. McCoy

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by Racist Infidel » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:54 am

This is one of the enumerated powers of Congress;

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

let·ter of marque
ˌletər əv ˈmärk/
nounhistorical
plural noun: letters of marque
1. a license to fit out an armed vessel and use it in the capture of enemy merchant shipping and to commit acts that would otherwise have constituted piracy.
2. a ship carrying a letter of marque.

So how can Congress authorize me to go on the high seas and commit piracy without my owning cannon, etc.? I don't think a 22 LR is what they had in mind. [smilie=cheers1.gif]

Cloaked Dagger
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by Cloaked Dagger » Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:01 am

Nukes and cruise missiles would have been called ordinance, not arms. Stinger missiles are carried by infantry units and might have been considered arms, those we should have for all the "how are you supposed to fight an apache helicopter?" people. The post above about letters of marque makes a good point too and many destroyer class and smaller warships(privateer sized) do carry cruise missiles, not nukes though. So I say draw the line at strategic weapons of mass destruction.
Libertas aut mortis!

User avatar
jjk308
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5642
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: Oldsmar, Florida USA

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by jjk308 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:11 pm

Constitution for the United States of America
Article 1
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To ........... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; .....

Under this clause the Congress has the right to regulate the militia, within the bounds of the individual rights of the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Incorporated into the Constitution with the right to keep and bear arms for self defense by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

And everyone able to bear arms is considered a member of the militia, not just those within the age limits of the draft laws, as set by Congress.

So RKBA is restricted to self defense and anything else can be regulated by Congress. As were letters of Marque and reprisal, so both land and sea forces can be regulated. I'd like to see an argument in court about your right to keep weapons that would not just defend you but blow the bejeezus out of everyone on the block. Not gonna happen. Ever.
I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

Cloaked Dagger
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by Cloaked Dagger » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:43 pm

jjk308 wrote:Constitution for the United States of America
Article 1
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To ........... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; .....

Under this clause the Congress has the right to regulate the militia, within the bounds of the individual rights of the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Incorporated into the Constitution with the right to keep and bear arms for self defense by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

And everyone able to bear arms is considered a member of the militia, not just those within the age limits of the draft laws, as set by Congress.

So RKBA is restricted to self defense and anything else can be regulated by Congress. As were letters of Marque and reprisal, so both land and sea forces can be regulated. I'd like to see an argument in court about your right to keep weapons that would not just defend you but blow the bejeezus out of everyone on the block. Not gonna happen. Ever.
That's the same argument the left makes against "assault weapons" though saying that you don't "need" a weapon like that to defend yourself and it's "only purpose" is to kill large numbers of people.
Libertas aut mortis!

User avatar
jjk308
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5642
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: Oldsmar, Florida USA

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by jjk308 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:19 am

You could say the same thing about steak knives or baseball bats. All these laws, regulations, policies require a degree of REASON which is lacking in absolutist arguing. You wanna end up with a Death Star and blow up the planet in self defense?
I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

REDinFL
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 5544
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Pinellas

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by REDinFL » Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:48 am

No. I want the planet "Mongo".
NRA Endowment Member
PhD from University of Hard Knocks

User avatar
FfNJGTFO
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:55 pm
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Contact:

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by FfNJGTFO » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:08 pm

jjk308 wrote:You could say the same thing about steak knives or baseball bats. All these laws, regulations, policies require a degree of REASON which is lacking in absolutist arguing. You wanna end up with a Death Star and blow up the planet in self defense?
That's the basic problem. One person's "reasonable/sensible" is another's "lunacy." "Mom's Demand" reminds us of that constantly... [smilie=042.gif]

User avatar
firemedic2000
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Tampa Bay Area

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by firemedic2000 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:04 pm

What exactly is consider arms. As in the right to keep and bear arms. Is a cannon a arm or a artillery piece. Is a rocket a arm or missile is a rifle a arm. So what exactly is the 2nd Admendment talking about. We know gun are considered arms. But does it include cannons and the other items. Are they considered arms or artillery, missiles and bombs

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, Even the repel of the 2nd Admendment would not end such rights.
Ranger Airborne, Firefighter, Oath Keeper, NRA If you support Terrorist including not protesting their actions or defending their rights you are my enemy
Energetically will I meet the enemies of The Constitution and Bill of Rights both foreign and domestic. I shall defeat them on the field of battle and totally and utterly destroy them

User avatar
Racist Infidel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: Ft. McCoy

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by Racist Infidel » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:07 pm

From the 1828 Websters Dictionary;

Arms
'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility.


Regulated
REG'ULATED, participle passive
Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.


The Second Amendment says; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that the Amendment states that "A well regulated Militia." Note also that the Amendment does not say "Well regulated muskets".

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

As noted in the quote above the "well regulated" applies to the Militia, not the Militia's "arms."

It is a little know fact that most of the artillery used in the War for Independence was privately owned. You can own fully operable tanks, artillery, bazookas, machine guns, etc, you just need the Tax Stamp.

[smilie=pdt_xtremez_13.gif]

User avatar
Racist Infidel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: Ft. McCoy

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by Racist Infidel » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:22 pm

jjk308 wrote:You could say the same thing about steak knives or baseball bats. All these laws, regulations, policies require a degree of REASON which is lacking in absolutist arguing. You wanna end up with a Death Star and blow up the planet in self defense?
You know, I've read the Constitution many times. I have never found the passage that says "..The Right to maintain and bear arms shall not be infringed, except those arms the government doesn't think you ought too have," does it?

This is a good review on the subject.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

User avatar
FfNJGTFO
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:55 pm
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Contact:

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by FfNJGTFO » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:59 pm

firemedic2000 wrote:What exactly is consider arms. As in the right to keep and bear arms. Is a cannon a arm or a artillery piece. Is a rocket a arm or missile is a rifle a arm. So what exactly is the 2nd Admendment talking about. We know gun are considered arms. But does it include cannons and the other items. Are they considered arms or artillery, missiles and bombs
I would have to go back to the Founding Father's writings. I think the RKBA was rooted in the belief that the "People" had the right to a defense against a tyrannical govt and to overthrow and establish a new one (Decl. of Independence) when needed. It would seem reasonable to infer that the "People" would need to be sufficiently equipped to do just that. In those times, that meant conventional firearms, perhaps cannon and other things. Today, that could mean a host of different weaponry... Nukes, bombs, SMAWs, tanks, missiles, etc. etc. And the future? Light Sabres? Ray Guns? Where does one draw the line?

I would say, in the spirit of our Founding Fathers, "We the People" should have whatever weaponry we need to do what they envisioned... defend against and overthrow a tyrannical govt. That would, therefore, seem to be a function of what the Govt. might use against us in an effort to retain control. If it's just "conventional" firearms and weapons (which I doubt, seriously), that's one thing. I would say, at minimum, we should retain all conventional, NFA, full auto and other weapons we now have (in all calibers, including up to .50bmg, etc.). Beyond that, If the govt. can use it against US citizens, then "We the People" should have it also. If that means Nukes, SMAWs, missiles, etc., or future things like "light sabres," then that's what it means. Now, realistically, I seriously doubt the Govt. could get away with Nuking/bombing US Citizens on US soil. At least they aren't supposed to use the Military for that (Posse Comitatus Act), and I don't know of any LEA that is trained in and authorized to use Nukes, stingers, Cruise Missiles, etc. etc.. So, perhaps we can safely draw the line there (i.e. whatever federal/state/local LEAs have or gets, we should have/get), plus what we currently have. I could be wrong. The govt. probably would engage the military if it were a true attempt at overthrowing the govt. So. maybe that should remain an option.
firemedic2000 wrote:The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, Even the repel of the 2nd Admendment would not end such rights.
Yes, the right to self defense is one of those "certain unalienable Rights" as mentioned in the "Declaration of Independence." 2A simply states that the Govt. shall not infringe upon that right. That hasn't stopped them in the past, and probably won't in the future, but...

User avatar
jjk308
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5642
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: Oldsmar, Florida USA

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by jjk308 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:25 am

Racist Infidel wrote:
It is a little know fact that most of the artillery used in the War for Independence was privately owned. You can own fully operable tanks, artillery, bazookas, machine guns, etc, you just need the Tax Stamp.

[smilie=pdt_xtremez_13.gif]
In the Revolution the artillery was often bought by a wealthy individual and given to the militia for use. Unless you had your own private fort it wasn't practical to use your cannon for self defense, and folks back then didn't have the luxury of being impractical theorists.
I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

User avatar
jjk308
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5642
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: Oldsmar, Florida USA

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by jjk308 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:28 am

FfNJGTFO wrote: Yes, the right to self defense is one of those "certain unalienable Rights" as mentioned in the "Declaration of Independence." 2A simply states that the Govt. shall not infringe upon that right. That hasn't stopped them in the past, and probably won't in the future, but...
The Declaration of Independence is not part of our basic law. And there isn't a single constitutional right that isn't regulated by the government in some way, usually after a series of court fights that determine the border between the individuals right and the government's ability to restrict its operation. By far the most numerous of those restrictions are made in the name of either the public safety or to protect the rights of others.

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."
George Washington

"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character."
Robert E. Lee

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
Benjamin Franklin
I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

User avatar
FfNJGTFO
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:55 pm
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Contact:

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by FfNJGTFO » Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:40 am

jjk308 wrote:
FfNJGTFO wrote: Yes, the right to self defense is one of those "certain unalienable Rights" as mentioned in the "Declaration of Independence." 2A simply states that the Govt. shall not infringe upon that right. That hasn't stopped them in the past, and probably won't in the future, but...
The Declaration of Independence is not part of our basic law.
It doesn't need to be. It is the very statement of why this country was founded and on the principles on which it was. And the laws and the Constitution should refelct that statement. Where they are not, currently (i.e. where laws are written to facilitate govt. control over the people) is a failure of that effort and need to be changed.
jjk308 wrote: And there isn't a single constitutional right that isn't regulated by the government in some way, usually after a series of court fights that determine the border between the individuals right and the government's ability to restrict its operation. By far the most numerous of those restrictions are made in the name of either the public safety or to protect the rights of others.
Yes, that may be what's happening, but that doesn't make it right, or of that original declaration.
jjk308 wrote:"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."
George Washington
And neither should the govt. trample on the rights of the common consent (i.e. "We the People").
jjk308 wrote:"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character."
Robert E. Lee
But when "lawful authority" becomes "Tyranny," we have to revolt against that. I'm not opposed to law & order. Obviously, we need that for the society to function properly and effectively. But I'm also a great fan of Justice and Constitutional Rights, as written and interpreted by the Founding Fathers... not some modern day progressive liberal SCOTUS justice. We are drifting away from that in the name of govt. control. We have to drift back towards liberty for the People.
jjk308 wrote:"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
Benjamin Franklin
He also wrote, "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

James Duncan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Nuclear "Fudds..."

Post by James Duncan » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:32 am

Which class of militia are y'all referencing ? Authorized or Unauthorized ?

Post Reply