Nevada Cattle Ranch

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.

I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.

People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.

I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one. [/quote]

Much is wrong with this post but I am typing on a smartphone and cannot address it now.[/quote]

His paragraph regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment is spot on(except for the “problem is” phrase), though.[/quote]

Correct. But like many who toe the “I love guns but BUT” line he instantly veers off course with, “it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one.” (I emphasized the key word)

One reveals their statist core when they implicitly state the government is in the “allowing” business and not the other way around, i.e., the people “allow” their government (certain things).

He also errs by conflating his love for his M2 and his country and how one must consequently supersede the other, his only “noble” choice being to subjugate his gun love to his country love. We can infer from his statements that we too, if we are to be true patriots like him, that we must beat our swords into plowshares and humble ourselves before our almighty earthly god – the collective will of our brethren and their chosen rulers – The Government.[/quote]

Haha! So you got all the answers don’t you?

[/quote]

Indeed.

If I don’t have 'em all I’m vigorously in pursuit of them on this subject. How 'bout you?

So, where do those rights come from? I assume you believe they are GOD given rights? Need this answered before I continue here

Even in 1789 governments had weapons that were far more dangerous than bullets. So what?

Many wise men think it would be foolish for the people to think an M2 is a weapon of mass destruction. Do you?
[/quote]
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction[/quote]

But alas, Sevvie was originally talking M2’s and he did in fact lump them together with ICBM’s.

Scroll up and re-read his post.[/quote]

I know, he talked about M2s, tanks and tactical nukes. That’s why I said Mass Destruction Weapons. I am cutting out the other and going straight to the end range of our governments weapons capabilties

322

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]

Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]

Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]

Yes. You may have a problem with the development of nuclear power, but that problem doesn’t disappear by denying some the right to possess that power.[/quote]

In matters such as this, precise terminology is important. Nuclear power is nuclear energy. In light of this, do you care to clarify?[/quote]

Is nuclear weaponry not the result of harnessing that?[/quote]

It is possible to have nuclear power/energy without having to produce nuclear weapons

324

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]

Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]

Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]

Wrong answer. The US Constitution authorizes private individuals to own and operate weapons systems larger than small arms. Do you know of what I speak? Where is this found?[/quote]

I didn’t indicate that small arms were the be-all and end-all of the second amendment. I’m attempting to have you lay out your position so I can better understand it. Outside of small arms, artillery existed in the eighteenth century. Not precisely, no.[/quote]

I will lay it out shortly. Just wanted to see if maybe those professors of yours had already taught you what I’m about to present.[/quote]

Letters of marque and reprisal.

The analog of which would be something along the lines of the private ownership of the F-22. Certainly the cannons of a privateer can be expected to find their parallel in MPADS.

325

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is nuclear weaponry not the result of harnessing that?[/quote]

I’m not interested in semantics. Why should non-state actors be able to own and deploy nuclear weapons? Usama bin Laden certainly had the wherewithal to procure multiple nuclear weapons. Would allowing him to have done so been a good idea?

Also, what is the universal moral precept that designates nuclear weapons as a “right”?

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

But alas, Sevvie was originally talking M2’s and he did in fact lump them together with ICBM’s.

Scroll up and re-read his post.[/quote]

Tactical nuclear weapons are short range and have military targets in mind, while non MIRV-ed ICBMs represent long range strategic nuclear weapons with civilian and industrial targets as their intended targets.

330

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Ahhh…I see someone who has attended my class before. I was hoping you would’nt show up just yet.[/quote]

Didn’t mean to spoil it.

Actually, though, I first learned of A1 S8 when Ron Paul (stupidly) thought letters of marque might be a good response to bin Laden after 9/11.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.

I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.

People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.

I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one. [/quote]

Much is wrong with this post but I am typing on a smartphone and cannot address it now.[/quote]

His paragraph regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment is spot on(except for the “problem is” phrase), though.[/quote]

Correct. But like many who toe the “I love guns but BUT” line he instantly veers off course with, “it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one.” (I emphasized the key word)

One reveals their statist core when they implicitly state the government is in the “allowing” business and not the other way around, i.e., the people “allow” their government (certain things).

He also errs by conflating his love for his M2 and his country and how one must consequently supersede the other, his only “noble” choice being to subjugate his gun love to his country love. We can infer from his statements that we too, if we are to be true patriots like him, that we must beat our swords into plowshares and humble ourselves before our almighty earthly god – the collective will of our brethren and their chosen rulers – The Government.[/quote]

Haha! So you got all the answers don’t you?

[/quote]

Indeed.

If I don’t have 'em all I’m vigorously in pursuit of them on this subject. How 'bout you?

So, where do those rights come from? I assume you believe they are GOD given rights? Need this answered before I continue here

Even in 1789 governments had weapons that were far more dangerous than bullets. So what?

Many wise men think it would be foolish for the people to think an M2 is a weapon of mass destruction. Do you?
[/quote]
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction[/quote]

But alas, Sevvie was originally talking M2’s and he did in fact lump them together with ICBM’s.

Scroll up and re-read his post.[/quote]

I know, he talked about M2s, tanks and tactical nukes. That’s why I said Mass Destruction Weapons. I am cutting out the other and going straight to the end range of our governments weapons capabilties
[/quote]

I understand but do you believe the Constitution provides for private ownership of weapons systems much larger than small arms?[/quote]

I believe it is not unlimited

334

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 11 gives the power to Congress to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisals, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Letters of Marque and Reprisals were congressional authorizations for privately held naval warships to engage enemy military and commercial shipping and to capture them and seize both the ships and the wealth contained therein as well as to keep the proceeds.

These letters did not authorize the arming of these private ships but rather they authorized these already armed ships, and their captains and owners, to attack the enemy in the name of the United States of America. It was therefore implicit that no private individual needed to compel its government to “allow” it to possess these weapons and all that went with them. That right was assumed. The private individual and his organization merely needed federal permission to use his privately held weapon systems to wage war in the name of the nation.

A heavily armed warship in the late 18th century was the most powerful weapon system of the day. It contained more than small arms. It contained artillery and the ability to transport that artillery to ~70% of the earth’s surface as well as the personnel to employ it.

Now one can certainly successfully argue the point that nukes in the hands of private individuals would be a dangerous thing. What one cannot do is call on the US Constitution to hopefully make the point that only the right to small arms is guaranteed.

Privateering was used in the American Revolution, the War of 1812 and even the Civil War. Paragraph 11 has never been repealed. Again the point is Congress does NOT authorize the arming of the ships; it authorizes the use of armed ships against enemy nations.

“Rules concerning Captures on Land…” also clearly implies this power is not limited to the sea.

Bottom line? Throw out your preconceived ideas that small arms are the limit to what a private citizen can possess and use. Those ideas ain’t constitutional. You may not like it but that’s the way it is.[/quote]

However, the 2A can be (and has been) argued not to apply to things like warships in that such cannot be borne.

From there it can be argued that the government’s authority to issue a letter of marque does not constitute the enumeration of a specific right to own a warship.

Which is to say, it’s complicated, and then it gets further complicated because we must use analogy to make it relevant to us today.

335

The US, while not a de jure party to the 1856 Treaty of Paris which ended the Crimean War (and also renounced privateering) , nonetheless has been a de facto party after the Civil War. Do you believe that letters of marque and reprisal constitute an effective foreign policy tool in the security environment of the twenty-first century?

338

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

…I believe it is not unlimited

[/quote]

And?
[/quote]

Do you feel that it is your Constitutional right to purchase or build a nuclear weapon?

Do you think that the Authors of the Constitution would feel that it is your right to purchase or build nuclear weapons?