My position on gun control was challenged during a recent conversation. I believe gun control is keeping your rounds on target. I believe that the Constitution is my carry permit. The person I was talking to disagreed, though. He asked me if private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. I believe that whatever arms an infantry soldier would typically carry is roughly the space the 2nd Amendment contemplates. Does this include grenades? Good question. How about a grenade launcher? Another good question. How about a crew-served automatic weapon, like an M60 or SAW. Lots of good questions . . .

The 2nd Amendment has had both a social and personal purposes. By being armed, citizens can, as a last resort, protect themselves against assault. The McDonald decision clarified the legitimacy of self-defense as a component of the 2nd Amendment. For a nation without a standing army, having a nation full of gun owners whose rifles were the equivalent to their potential enemies. During the War of 1812, I’ll bet regimental commanders would have welcomed mustering militiamen showing up with grapeshot, canister and a cannon from their private stores.

Our Founders had a deep and abiding distrust of a government that grows too large, and developed a constitution that severely limited federal power. They broke that power up into three parts just to make sure it didn’t accumulate in any one branch. Further, the 2nd Amendment was a key component of limiting that power because it protected the means of insurrection. State militias could muster men who were the equivalent of any regular Federal unit in arms and numbers if not experience and tactics. American culture has always had within it the idea that the people could overthrow an illegitimate or oppressive government.

My personal store of ammo and arms doesn’t make me the equal of a 20-year-old infantryman. While I could muster 10 stout men with rifles and about 300 rounds each, an Army squad of 10 has fully automatic weapons, battle armor, air support grenades and artillery. Not to mention the billion rounds of ammo stockpiled by the government.

They can also probably climb a flight of stairs without getting winded. To defeat a regiment of federal regulars would likely take a 10 to 1 ratio of patriots and even then we can only hope they treat American citizens with the kind of deference given the Taliban, whose nighttime bomb planting was left unimpeded lest gunfire wake the neighbors.

If one function of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a citizen check on government power (something even the Occupy St. Louis hippies understood when I asked them), and the people are already substantially outgunned by the government, then it follows that making that imbalance greater is going in the wrong direction. Without ever answering the question of should a citizen be allowed to own grenades, a chain gun or an ICBMW (that’s an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in a Winnebago), we can certainly say that, at a minimum, a citizen ought not be limited to a seven round magazine for his semi-automatic weapon when a GI carries 30 for his full auto rifle. Can’t we?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. Ah, the old “we need stricter gun control becuz nukes” argument. So tiresome, but the anti’s always seem to bring it up.

    • I have said quite a few times that all thats really needed is semiauto rifles with detachable mags for asymetrical/guerrilla warfare. The auto is not necessary (and even wasteful) in most situations and the other stuff is classified as dangerous devices.
      Stupid libtards.

  2. The nuke argument is always strange. It seems obvious enough that The Second Ammendment refers to a soldier’s “normal” equipment and if we had properly maintained the militia discipline, larger “neighborhood watch” weapons.

    • Actually, until the Progressive Era (Teddy Roosevelt), no one questioned that a private citzen could own any military arms they needed or could afford. Including cannons, gatling guns, machine guns, iron-clad gun boats, etc. And many did. They were only prohibited from using them in crimes.

      • Increasing population density, rather than political views, has historically been the #1 biggest driver for restrictions on firearms ownership. Look at the US states (and Western nations outside the US) where gun control is of significant concern, and you’ll find a nearly perfect correlation between population density and restrictions on firearms ownership.

        The significant increases in US population density during the first half of the 1900s, particularly after the invention of air conditioning, are a key factor in the spread of gun-control laws.

        • Spoos: yes, that too. When you pack a large number of barely-evolved hairless nomadic apes into an areal density more appropriate for prairie dogs, there are going to be problems.

    • I always thought it was pretty self-evident, (like the truths in the Declaration,) by the words used- “arms,” as in “small arms,” as a single operator firearm has been known for centuries. If they’d said “guns”, I’d be petitioning the hell out of my electile dysfunctions to preserve my rights to a deck cannon, since it would look so good next to my tri-podded M2 on my patio….
      I tells ya, the stupid shit I would do with a time machine…

      • If said guns I’d buy a plot of land in Texas. Buy another one about 10 miles away as my impact zone, and then blast away with a 155mm. I am sure the neighbors in between would not be happy with that tearing paper sound all day.

  3. Don’t forget Obama in his speech wants to cut our USAF and USN Nuclear arms by 1/3 so the US cant be armed citizens? with guns no military? no. But Islamic scum and Commies all over the planet Obama wants to arm.

    • They are only dangerous to us if we invite them over here. A sane immigration policy and America is very nearly bullet proof. Without open borders we would not have had 9/11.

      • Open borders??? Good luck with that. Excluding Alaska, our borders with Canada and Mexico is 3,987 miles. Now add in the coastline of the 48 states……

        Sorry bub, no chance to keep out the riff raff.

        Just issue every law abiding citizen a AR-15, and a sidearm: Sig or Glock. Include monthly training, plus ammo allotment. Open and concealed carry in all 50 states. No gun free zones. Mandatory firearm safety and introduction in all private and public schools, starting in the 5th grade. Establish shooting teams who compete every weekend, like football and basketball in high schools, and College.

        Consequences? Aggravated rape drops by 95%. So does home invasion, armed robbery, and murder.

        Cut them loose on the bad guys. Problem solved.

  4. Okay, I’ll play.

    Sure, citizens should be able to buy nukes. Just hand over a few hundred million bucks — cash only — at your local nuke supply store and bring a large flatbed., a crane and some husky guys in coveralls. Then spend another $2 billion on a stealth bomber. You’re gonna need pilots and mechanics, ordnance guys (as the saying goes, if you ain’t ordnance, you ain’t sh!t) and a full crew. Sure, you might be able to get away without the bomber if you light a fuse and run real fast. Oh, and don’t forget those snappy radiation suits. Chicks dig ’em.

    I never talk to gungrabbers, wingnuts or squib loads because I fear that stoopid is highly contageous, and there ain’t no vaccine.

    • Ralph, you are correct. Stoopid is contagious!! Examples are Bloomberg, Feinstein. However, there is a vaccine. It is comprised of knowledge, common sense, compassion, objectivity.

    • Yeah like you said I think owning a nuke hits a wall because it would be cost prohibitive. And if someone really wants to do harm with one. There is still a black market albeit a small one for an item that would be still very difficult to obtain on such a market, and once again, at a very high price.

    • There is no vaccine, but you can minimize your risk while interacting with them.
      Just remember: Time, Distance, Shielding.

  5. Long distance gun ranges are hard enough to find, let alone nuke ranges. I spend enough on cardboard and steel targets now…having to build a town’s worth of structures to blow up sounds a lot like work.

    • Long distance gun ranges are hard enough to find, let alone nuke ranges. I spend enough on cardboard and steel targets now…having to build a town’s worth of structures to blow up sounds a lot like work.
      Yeah, and not to mention all the math & physics involved with nukes. That math & physics stuff is hard, ya’ll! Just gimme them ol’ time RPGs, LAWs, SAWs, ICBMs, & Stingers and I’ll be jes’ fine.

      • You probably know this already, but nuclear weapons (particularly single-stage, fission-only weapons) are startlingly simple devices. Securing a near-critical mass of special nuclear material is the most challenging part. The engineering involved in the design/construction phase is ridiculously straightforward. Perhaps we should ban mechanical engineering degrees. 😉

    • Imagine how expensive it would be to ‘sight in your ICBM’. I would want a damned good ‘bomb drop calculator’ app.

  6. IMHO, handguns and semi-auto rifles with standard capacity magazines (20-30+rds) are the minimum for defense against a tyrannical government.

    “A handgun is merely a weapon used to fight your way back to your rifle.”
    -Jeff Cooper
    Adding to that, a modern musket is used to fight your way to a rocket launcher/machine gun/assault rifle/etc.

  7. They LOVE their specious little arguments – but don’t try and use one on them.

    Anyway, we already OWN tanks, bombers, missiles, nukes, submarines, because we PAID for them. So they’re ours. Sorta.

  8. The second someone says that I know they are completely ignorant. The EPA and AIEA have a few things to say about this before even the Feds get involved so it is simply a tactic to put you on the defensive from the beginning, even those these folks have no idea about gun operation, or what does what. All they know is guns equals bad..

  11. All of us are worried about the assault on our 2A rights. How about this. Since 2008, DHS can seize you computers, cell phones of 197 million Americans without any warrant, reasonable cause, etc.

    http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/homeland-security-approves-seizure-of-cell-phones-and-laptops-within-100-miles-of-border-report-remains-secret-130211?news=847030

    The assault on our rights is an all out attack on the Constitution. Under the guise of the Patriot Act, and subsequent government action since 9/11.

    • Is there something entering the country that the State is protecting us from? Or is it the streams of people leaving that DHS doesn’t want us to see. Do I need to register my collection of postcards from the Jersey Shore and the Barrier Islands?

  13. I have just e mailed DiFi suggesting she add Nuclear Weapons and their launchers to the AWB so there will be no misunderstanding as to the seriousness with which this legislation should be taken.

  14. Since many of the original militias (both before and after the 2a was written) were privately run, one could argue that between the 1st (right to assemble) and the 2nd amendment, you have the right to organize a militia. And obviously the militia should equipped with whatever “common military weapons”, like nukes, you can afford.

  15. Federalist Paper #46, third paragraph from the end:

    “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.”

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

      • As do I. I learned about that particular paper from a self-defense association spokesman. It’s strong evidence that the popular militias were meant to be a check on the federal government, and that talk of defending our liberties by force of arms if necessary has a solid place in our political tradition.

  16. I’m not sure how it squares with the history around the second amendment, but for a practical limit, I like this one…

    Citizens should be entitled to whatever equipment and arms are used by police departments. In the event citizens ever took action against their government, they are much more likely to skirmish with local law enforcement than the regular military or the national guard. After all, there really aren’t enough people in the army to secure an entire nation the size of the US, or even a significant part of it, and in the event of that situation, a large part of the military and national guard would probably end up on the other side. The same could probably also be said of local law enforcement.

  17. What’s wrong with owning a nuke? Do you have the ability to acquire a nuke? Manufacturing one isn’t all that hard, it’s just a matter of materials that are hard to come by. The problem is, when you concede to people things, they just keep going. You give an inch, they’ll keep pulling until you pull back, because you’ve lost the grounds of rationality.

    The standing army is just a set of people equipped, paid, and trained via taxes. The citizenry is willing to give up a percent of their property in exchange for armed guards. That doesn’t mean the armed guards have some magical or supernatural moral character or conviction to do only good with those items. When you say “I can’t own a nuke, a missile, a grenade, a machine gun, a jet figher, a tank, an APC or whatever” what you’re saying is, there’s some matrix of “this property is acceptable to own by the government” and “this property is acceptable to own for the citizens”. Which means that the government is ABOVE the citizens. You’re creating a class system, patricians and plebeians/nobles and peasants. That you and your neighbors are not moral enough to own something, but that 51% of you can decide who is a moral person, and they’re above you.

    So, yes, when you make concessions to this, then they’re going to win the argument, because the foundation of your rebuttal is weak. That odd feeling of anxiousness is your cognitive dissonance kicking in when you try to argue you shouldn’t be able to have a nuke.

  18. If we allow civilians to own any “normal” small arms carried by the U.S. military, then grenade launchers like the XM25 CDTE or a Colt M203 (attaches to an M4) ought to be legal. As technology advances, the destructive power of small arms will only continue to increase. For example, the U.S. has been using the XM1060, a 40-mm thermobaric grenade, in Afghanistan for about a decade.

    So part of the point about the civilian “nuclear” argument is that their ought to be a limit to both the kind and amount of destructive power that any civilian should be able to muster. Therefore the nuke points to an implicit threshold that just about everyone can agree is well beyond the protections of the 2nd Amendment.

    • Quoting myself: “Without ever answering the question of should a citizen be allowed to own grenades, a chain gun … we can certainly say that, at a minimum, a citizen ought not be limited to a seven round magazine for his semi-automatic weapon when a GI carries 30 for his full auto rifle. Can’t we?”

      This is the thrust of my argument, and at the same time I am demonstrating the folly of theirs. Americans are already wildly outgunned by cops and the military. Why must we be further outgunned.

  19. Every human has the natural, inherent right to licitly accquire property and use that property for licit purposes.

    For clarity, I mean “licit” as in accordance with the Natural Law.

  20. Our Founders had a deep and abiding distrust of a government that grows too large

    could I get a citation on that?

    • You will find it in most of the documents written by the founding fathers (and even several others who opposed the new Constitution in 1787). You can’t help but see it in hundreds of places.

      The only reason we have a Bill Of Rights is that a large percentage of the states would not approve the new Constitution, unless those 10 Amendments were included to limit the powers of the Federal government.

    • I think the fact that the Constitution is written the way it is is pretty good evidence of this attitude. It specifically enumerates powers that are “granted” to the government by the people. It specifically states that anything not written into the document is a power reserved for the citizenry.

      Thomas Paine wrote in “Common Sense” something that seems to have been a popular sentiment among the Founders: “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one…” No way to interpret that other than as a call for very limited government.

    • No. You can’t. If you don’t understand that that is exactly what the constitution and the bill of rights implied, than you really need to reconsider what it means to be an American.

  21. The whole “nukes” argument is bogus. Obammy doesn’t want to rule a nuclear wasteland. He wants as many nice healthy subjects as possible.

  22. I don’t think there is cognitive dissonance in suggesting that only states can have nuclear missiles, because only states are capable of waging them. They are a meta-level weapon that require significant resources to wield. It’s nonsensical to suggest that some dude could procure and use one, or that an individual could use one for any legitimate purpose.

    That doesn’t conflict with the idea that individuals or militias should be able to bear weapons on par with police or a standing army.

  23. Ah, the good ol’ nuke vs. gun debate.

    Kind of a non-nonsensical comparison considering there is no practical way to set off a nuclear device in your immediate vicinity without being a casuality of the resulting blast. Well… unless you’re already in a shielded bunker. Underground. With a resaon to set it off in the first place.

    This is even assuming you could purchase, store, and reliably set off a nuclear device without blowing up yourself, your family, your friends, and thousands of your neighbors. And where would you store it? If you want to keep yourself, your family, and your neighbors safe, you wouldn’t keep it in a populated area.

    And what reason could you have for owning a nuclear weapon? If you really want to go by the 2nd Amendment, it seems pretty clear to me that any “arms” mentioned are meant for a civilian militia. Even the average soldier on the field or your law enforcement officer doesn’t have immediate access to nuclear bombs, so why should we?

    And unless you live in a remote area, there’s also no way to fully control or limit collateral damage from a nuclear explosion (not to mention the long term effects of radiation).

    So, your only option that leaves your conscience clear while setting off a nuclear device would be on a remote stretch of land or water that is uninhabited and in the process of being invaded by bad guys. Good luck with that.

    Now, really, how does that in any way relate to a owning a firearm?

    Seriously, what a outlandish argument and one that should only be expected from children.

  24. The main reason the nuke vs. gun ownership falls flat is the reality of urban and residential planning.

    Unless you live out in the boonies, chances are you are going to be living with neighbors beside, above, or below your residence. There simply isn’t enough space between you and your neighbors which doesn’t make it practical or responsible to own and store explosive devices with substantial explosive capacity (much less a nuke) in your home or on your person.

    Which is why the police typically don’t carry grenades on their person. The army is allowed to carry explosives because they are in hostile warzones often surrounded by unpredictable, and unseen assailants.

    That’s a big, glaring, common sense distinction.

    Unless the US turns into a hostile warzone, high explosives aren’t needed by the average citizen.

    • Unless the US turns into a hostile warzone, high explosives aren’t needed by the average citizen.

      Yes, but using your logic, when we DO need them, we will not have them because people like you said “it couldn’t happen here”.

      • Are you talking about nukes or just explosive weapons Toten?

        My logic tells me the average Joe and Jane can’t be expected to use the little red button for the same reason the President himself can’t launch a nuke all by himself. A committee of advisers need to sign off on the order.

        Basically, unless you are financially, emotionally, and educated enough to own, operate, and behave responsibly as the leader of your own sovereign territory, then you shouldn’t have access to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention, you would also need a committee of elected people that have to sign off on your using your nuclear option if and when the option arises. After all, there will almost never be a case where using a nuclear device will result in zero collateral damage. Enjoy that moral dilemma.

        With great power comes great responsibility.

        And the government would never concede to private controlled ownership because they know and we know that any person that has a nuclear device can’t be governed simply because they would be on equal ground.

        So, unless the US decides to no longer be United, well then each state could be sovereign and have it’s own nukes. But that’s as far as I can see that going. You can’t keep shrinking the responsible parties until you’re left with individuals with nukes. Because that’s just silly.

      • Also, I’m not saying there is no circumstance where a citizen can’t own explosive weapons.

        I think you should be able to own military explosives or equipment if you can demonstrate the same storage, protection, and expertise in handling said equipment that our armed forces employ.

        In addition, you must have:

        1) An immaculate record.
        2) All ordinance (which you do not have to declare) is securely stored in a facility that passes a security inspection.
        3) Extensive military training (or equivalent by accredited sources) or service and currently take renewal training for all explosives training every year.
        4) Qualifications for all weapons and equipment in your facility. Or staff with the requisite qualifications to handle your equipment.

        Meet or exceed these standards, and yeah, you can have a tank.

        But the bigger you go, the more likelihood you will need a committee of people (voted for by the public or people living in the surrounding area of your storage facility) that will make sure to keep you in check in the unlikely event you are not of sound mind.

        Aka, you can’t just take your tank out for a drive unless it’s in controlled conditions on your own compound with trained personnel. Meaning someone (even if it’s your own staff) will always know what you or their coworkers are up to at all times for security purposes.

  25. I think by contemplating the circumstances by which the right to keep and bear arms some types of arms can be infringed, we are moving on to our opponents battle space. As a practical matter, the military will always outgun the citizens, at least until sufficient numbers of citizens muster.

    Civilians will always be at a disadvantage in the early stages of an insurrection – the Whiskey Rebellion failed. The Confederacy ultimately failed. I think whatever restrictions we have are enough, probably too many. We need to shove hard in the other direction.

  26. I don’t have a problem with banning weapons that kill indiscriminately. A rifle, handgun, etc. requires precision for the most part….or the weapon is pointed/aimed at whatever gets “hit”. Obviously someone could get a handgun and fire it indiscriminately, but the weapon isn’t the problem in that case, the nutjob operating it is. But if someone launches a RPG at a carjacker, there’s a good chance people will be injured who were not the intended targets, even if the “shot” is perfectly accurate. That’s a far-fetched example but I used it just to explain the reasoning behind my take on it. It would be interesting to see what Crossbreed would come out with for a tuckable IWB holster for a RPG, though! My guess is that printing may just be something you’d have to accept!

  27. The founders clearly intended that the standard military arm of the day be permitted to the US citizen. If the progressives want civilians to be disarmed, disarm the military, security forces and police.

  28. “I’ll bet regimental commanders would have welcomed mustering militiamen showing up with grapeshot, canister and a cannon from their private stores.”

    Where do you think much of that came from?

    F everyone trying to pin the question of “WHAT” in relation to what is protected by the 2nd Amendment. IT SAYS “ARMS” (i.e., whatever the F it takes [further proof that the founding fathers knew this would be an ongoing battle with tyrannical aholes who may also be your neighbors.])
    PIN THE QUESTION TO “WHY” “ARMS” may be required. The answer is to (potentially) rout and kill every swinging di<k coalescing together and calling itself your "government".
    That government has, and will continue to develop, arms/armament that overshadows the capability of the average citizen who may one day need to overthrow it, so that same government better not attempt to quash the paltry means of at least interdicting the persons (ahole neighbers) of which that oppressive government is comprised, as that is a clear clear sign that such oppression is their only goal.

Comments are closed.