If I have the money to operate an F15 and all its possible payloads, why should it be disallowed for me as a civilian to have one?
Same for an icbm, (I never said nuclear warhead to be clear).
The government can declare me a terrorist, target me from space, launch a conventional warhead from off the coast of California, and turn my home into a smoking crater….
But all I’m allowed to have to fight back against that is a musket?
Guess I’ll just melt all my guns into plowshares and go farm potatoes in the desert to feed my overlords.
I was just wondering if mass destruction has been classified by any group? Wouldn’t that be required before knowing if a weapon qualified? Kind of like mass shootings and AR’s.
I think possessing device of mass destruction is an actual charge on the books. A pipe bomb is an example of it, so one would be in trouble long before he constructs a nuclear device.
As far as Founding Fathers themselves, I think they would find only one type of weapon distasteful - self-replicating and self-controlled. Back then it would be infectious disease. Now we are about to have battlefield AI. This should not be allowed.
A pipe bomb is classified as a destructive device.
I suppose if you loaded it with live anthrax, or sarin gas like the Japan subway attacks it could step up to WMD status.
IMO, even “destructive devices” such as bombs rockets and grenades should qualify as arms allowed.
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons should be banned from use by any entity globally. (Read as even world power governments should not have them). But that’s a Pandora’s box that can’t be closed anymore.
Not if it is a black powder cannon. No permit needed, not even in the Peepuls’ Republick of Kallyfornia. One can drive down the interstate with a black powder cannon in a trailer fully exposed and no l.e.o. will even pull you over unless it is to admire the weapon. I agree with the earlier post that the Constitution still provides for Letters of Marque. The fact that the Constitution still provides for such authorization presupposes that the holder of such letter would be entitled to arm his ship with the latest in weaponry including long range missiles. Biden is wrong when he says that citizens couldn’t buy cannons during Revolutionary Days. Many wealthy citizens purchased cannons and accoutrement for use by their militia, you know, guys between 16 and 60 who were required to own a musket, not a fowling piece, a musket, bayonet or hanger(sword) and have the described amount of ammo for said musket. Muskets were the assault weapon of the 18th century, thus the need for the bayonet to fit on the musket or in lieu of a bayonet, a sword. Hand to hand combat was the order of the day. After you have fired your single shot it was very handy to have a sharp pointy instrument on the end of your fairly long musket. Muskets were the denoted equipment because they were rapid fire as compared to a rifle which was much slower to load and had to be cleaned after only a few shor\ts otherwise it could not be loaded.
I could go on at length about “well regulated” as almost no one understands what the meaning of those two words was in terms of military language in the late 18th century. However it is getting late and I must off to slumberland.
The FBI has a definition for mass shootings and it is three or more people not related to each other. In other words if you shoot your family of six siblings the FBI doesn’t consider that a mass shooting. You must shoot three or more unrelated folk. I don’t know if weapons of mass destruction has a definition but following the FBI’s criterion it would be a weapon capable of killing three or more folks at one time. Thus a hand grenade could be a weapon of mass destruction. A single shot rifle could be a weapon of mass destruction. In the Texas Tower shooting, the shooter could have used a single shot Ruger No. 1 rifle and it would have been a weapon of mass destruction. That’s why legislators have such a hard time defining items to proscribe. Like one Federale Supreme is quoted as saying about pornography, “It’s hard to describe but I know it when I see it.”
As I understand it, grape shot was for shorter ranges and cannister shot (grape shot loaded into a tin can which split apart after firing) was for longer ranges.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the notion of WMDs that can wipe out a city in the blink of an eye was inconceivable.
Nevertheless, the wording “…shall not be infringed.” implies that there should be no limit to it, troubling as the thought is, of a suicide cult for example getting hold of a nuke.
I would say that the 2nd Amendment’s spirit of zero infringement on keeping and bearing arms should be kept, so in theory someone could build and sell a nuke, and a private buyer buy it.
That said, practically it should be impossible to do so, because I don’t see it as unreasonable for the government to place restrictions on buying such a device, such as:
Keeping $1T in escrow in the event of an “accident” and the clean-up needed afterwards (I note this is why many commercial utility companies are unwilling to go nuclear unless backed by government guarantees in the event of a meltdown)
Having the device in the center of private property with a 100km radius
Having your own vetted personal security detail guarding it
etc.
So the government in the case of a WMD doesn’t outlaw it outright because of the 2A but makes it practically nigh impossible to get because of rightful safety precautions needed to keep such a device.
I have read (somewhere) that so-called “suitcase nukes” and other ‘portable’ nukes are not simply a matter of carrying it around until ready to deploy. All nukes require regular maintenance by highly skilled techs. They are also very heavy; ‘suitcase’ being more a description of the size rather than ease of carrying.
I actually don’t worry much about terrorists walking around with little nukes. Not when there are so, so many choices for truly powerful mineral/chemical compounds which are far less dangerous to their owners yet still capable of tremendous destruction and carnage. Some explosives, properly deployed, can result in a first impression of nuclear devastation without a grain of fissionable material being used.
So, that’s the definition of infringement. A MAJOR infringement, effectively a total ban.
Even a free permit you get just for applying is infringement.
Not that I disagree with the idea that infringement on suicide cults having nukes, but…yeah those things majorly infringe on keeping and bearing a nuclear device
In your opinion, should it be legal for one man to drive around with a truck equipped in the way that his was when he went to the federal building that day?
What about a truck with 10x the explosive potential of that one? 100X?
I’m a major second amendment supporter and practicer. No civilian should want or need nuclear,biological or chemical weapons. If you can carry it and it’s not one of those things sure…If you think misshaps and training accidents are bad with guns…give some jabroni a missile to play with.
what a stupid criterion! It is useful only if you want to point at a gun as the only common factor in shootings, and want to sweep under the rug all issues of culture or improper medical treatment.
In my opinion, NO. What he did was a cowardly act of terrorism.
Even though most of the components of his truck full of explosives, which are not illegal in their original forms, can be purchased locally without any sort of regulation, he used them to make a bomb and killed innocent people.
My comment was posted in response to David38’s statement that:
