Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And of course these arms must be powerful enough so they we may ensure the very SECURITY OF THE STATE. Think about that for a minute. Not just powerful enough to defend yourself from a knife-wielding burglar, but powerful enough to be seen in the defense of the VERY SECURITY of the state. That is, weaponry that would be expected to match an actor that poses a threat to the very life of the nation. [/quote]

I already tried this approach. Apparently that phrase doesn’t matter.

182

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[A right only to handguns would not be Constitutional, per the spirit and intent of the BOR. The above is merely proof that your interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is deficient in that it violates the logically necessary progression I’ve written above – and therefore does not stand as an argument for an absolute right to all conceivable arms.][/quote]

My interpretation is correct and brave. Brave, because while I dislike the fact that it allows for the nuclear backpack, it does. Face it, own up to it.[/quote]

No, thats a fringe theory. Ahistorical and illogical (reasons given and unanswered: history of limitations on unqualified rights from contempt of court to infringement of right to bear arms in court to the Brandenburg test to commercial speech unprotectedness).

[quote]
They meant ARMS, period, full stop.[/quote]

They didn’t just mean arms, they said arms. And just that: arms. Not some arms, not all arms, not every conceivable arm. They could have said these things: they didn’t. Arms. The lines were left for us to draw. In evidence of the unarguable fact that “the right to keep and bear arms” does not logically necessitate an absolutist “right to keep and bear all conceivable arms”: A handgun is an arm. Handguns are arms. A right to keep and bear handguns is a right to keep and bear arms. This is logically necessary.

[quote]
Amend the damn thing if you want it change.[/quote]

It should be revisited, for other reasons. This is not one of them. I don’t need to amend the thing in order for nuclear weapons to not ever be privately owned. Objections to this constitute fringe theories. They are historically illiterate and logically invalid (reasons given).

183

I’ve got to go for real now folks. Until next time.

184

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.

185

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And of course these arms must be powerful enough so they we may ensure the very SECURITY OF THE STATE. Think about that for a minute. Not just powerful enough to defend yourself from a knife-wielding burglar, but powerful enough to be seen in the defense of the VERY SECURITY of the state. That is, weaponry that would be expected to match an actor that poses a threat to the very life of the nation. [/quote]

I already tried this approach. Apparently that phrase doesn’t matter.[/quote]

Willful re-interpretation I suppose.

186

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[A right only to handguns would not be Constitutional, per the spirit and intent of the BOR. The above is merely proof that your interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is deficient in that it violates the logically necessary progression I’ve written above – and therefore does not stand as an argument for an absolute right to all conceivable arms.][/quote]

My interpretation is correct and brave. Brave, because while I dislike the fact that it allows for the nuclear backpack, it does. Face it, own up to it. They meant ARMS, period, full stop. It’s ok to admit they were ignorant of nuclear weapons. It’s ok to admit that the constitution is flawed. Instead of this pretending its shortcomings only SEEM to exist because we just aren’t reading plain text while crossing our eyes, standing on our heads, all the while trying to mentally solve thermodynamics problems. You desire an outcome, and you’ll be damned if you won’t interpret with every ounce of interpretation in you in order to turn the 2nd into a federally enumerated power. Amend the damn thing if you want it changed. Is there nobody brave enough anymore? Do we all sit here waiting for “their judges” to retire or die of old age so we get “our interpretation in.” Amend it. The most extreme examples would be squashed in a heartbeat. Then we can actually have a damn national debate about what is left. “Instead of /wink /wink, if you just read it like this…Yeah, you see it too now, right? /wink /wink.”[/quote]

Amen.

187

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No. Your house or business is not the state and is not constricted by the Bill of Rights. The state and its property are.[/quote]

The state is the collective I’s.[/quote]

And this “collective I’s” is explicitly prohibited from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms. Full stop.

[/quote]

That’s not what you’ve been saying! Full stop.

188

But, again, it isn’t infringement because it is not only not his property as an individual, it is the property of others as a whole. It is not his house to set the rules. It is our ‘house.’ He may continue to carry his nuclear device off the property.

189

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, again, it isn’t infringement because it is not only not his property as an individual, it is the property of others as a whole. It is not his house to set the rules. It is our ‘house.’ He may continue to carry his nuclear device off the property.[/quote]

Just like we all as individual groups of people can’t plop ourselves down in the court room, having innumerable meetings, talking over each other (including the judge who was hearing a case). You can still make your associations and speeches outside of the courtroom. It comes back to property and who has the right/authority to dispense with its usage and how.

191

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists is not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

P.S., a uniform doesn’t convey strategic insights. I’ve heard hard-boiled special operators advocate that the US should have undertaken a “pincer invasion” of Iran after Saddam was deposed via Iraq and Afghanistan. Qualified civilian policymakers can and should question military strategy. After all, the military is civilian led and war is merely the continuation of politics by other means. Don’t confuse that with civilians interjecting when it comes to the operational or tactical level, however.[/quote]

I really don’t care what you have to say on the topic until you have done something, anything, in the field other than sit in a classroom.

That’s not me being a dick either. I wouldn’t take a non-practicing Ph.D’s word on taxes over even a practicing senior accountant because that senior knows how stuff actually works in the real world. [/quote]

A lot of assumptions on your part. Why would I attest to sensitive work experience on an online forum?

There is no nonproliferation wonk who I’m debating the subject with. It’s someone shooting from the hip about nuclear weapons in a 2nd amendment thread and someone who has taken the time and effort to acquaint himself with the elementary literature. That isn’t me being a know it all. I just find your assumptions and resulting analysis to be untenable because they are based on not evidence but gut impulse. Strategy based on impulse doesn’t bode well. I don’t speak of taxes because I don’t know accounting 101.

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yep, since Arms is all encompassing term for weaponry employed in warfare.
And since this is related to the need for the private citizen to pick up his arms and take his part in the militia/militias against an actor or actors powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state, common sense and reason is enough to tell you they weren’t talking about “something good enough for home defense.” Nope, says it right there. They expected weapons that wouldn’t be shocking to see in warfare. Yep, right there. Plain English.
[/quote]

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong, a fifth of the minimum force requirement. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf

193

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.

194

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.

197

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.
[/quote]

Oh oh, it’s implied… get the fuck out of here.

198

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists is not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

P.S., a uniform doesn’t convey strategic insights. I’ve heard hard-boiled special operators advocate that the US should have undertaken a “pincer invasion” of Iran after Saddam was deposed via Iraq and Afghanistan. Qualified civilian policymakers can and should question military strategy. After all, the military is civilian led and war is merely the continuation of politics by other means. Don’t confuse that with civilians interjecting when it comes to the operational or tactical level, however.[/quote]

I really don’t care what you have to say on the topic until you have done something, anything, in the field other than sit in a classroom.

That’s not me being a dick either. I wouldn’t take a non-practicing Ph.D’s word on taxes over even a practicing senior accountant because that senior knows how stuff actually works in the real world. [/quote]

A lot of assumptions on your part. Why would I attest to sensitive work experience on an online forum? [/quote]

Where, at the college you go to in PA? Some internship where you get coffee? Give me a break. You’ve attested to that fact that you are a non-working college student working on his dissertation right here on this very website.

[quote]
There is no nonproliferation wonk who I’m debating the subject with. [/quote]

You and I aren’t debating anything. You jumpedin the middle of an ongoing conversation that is 3 days old with no fucking clue or context with which things are being said.

[quote]
It’s someone shooting from the hip about nuclear weapons in a 2nd amendment thread and someone who has taken the time and effort to acquaint himself with the elementary literature. That isn’t me being a know it all. I just find your assumptions and resulting analysis to be untenable because they are based on not evidence but gut impulse. Strategy based on impulse doesn’t bode well. I don’t speak of taxes because I don’t know accounting 101. [/quote]

Laughable, per usual. I find your assumptions and resulting analysis untenable because they come from zero actual experience.

I provided evidence for my position in a 27 page paper written by a law professor, you of all people ought to love that shit, go read it.

“I don’t speak of taxes because I don’t know accounting 101.” Yet we’ve seen you spout off about economic on here…

199

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

You are fine with that, well, then that settles it. Scratch the second Bismark is cool with the Swiss approach so…

You literally have no clue what you are talking about in regards to te purpose of militia forces in the United States.

200

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

I think this would be fine too. I don’t think, however, the 2nd Amendment should be retooled to mean that this was the “original intent” nor should any retooling occur that restricts existing gun rights to those who don’t participate in this program.
[/quote]

I’m surprised. I do not agree. I think it would be a bad idea to force males that want to be armed to undergo army training and then serve some quazi militia reserve duty for 12 years. The enormous cost of such a program is one thing. The central government training the state militia’s is another thing entirely. Bad idea, imo. Circumvents the entire counterbalancing purpose of the militia.