The question is whether individuals have a right to area effect weapons used by institutions to attack groups. Beginning with fictional planet busters
on one extreme, and pinfire pistols on the other, somewhere in the middle, we shall find a common ground, and somewhere we shall find the grey
We can all agree that a planet busting device actually infringes
on the gun rights of others. If the planet and all things on it are
disintegrated, clearly, you have also disintegrated all the weapons along with it. This absurd point needs to exist, so that when we scale back, we
can perceive where this line of reasoning breaks down.
The next logical step down is hydrogen bombs, such as the Tsar Bomba. 50 megatons or so, capable of disintegrating all life within a large radius
approximating a city. No one within the disintegration radius would have had their right to bear arms preserved, however, they do call nuclear weapons
an "arms race", and unlike the planet busters, they exist, and there are thousands of them out there.
But this brings us to the human instinct for moral appeal to culturally indoctrinated norms. Take the 1968 handgun laws for example. Is it right that
a 19 year old can have a long gun, but pistols are banned? Does this sound like it conforms to the 2nd amendment? Objectively, it does not. It is
because we have become culturally indoctrinated to believe it is normal, that we accept it prima facie
. Certainly any teen with his
grandfather's civil war era cowboy six shooter thought their second amendment had been infringed, much like every citizen with gold thought it was an
infringement when they were confiscated under executive order 6102 of 1933.
We have accepted that institutions are somehow more responsible than individuals, at least in the past, whereas the existence of current world leaders
with autonomy to use nuclear weapons at their pleasure may cause some to second guess whether institutions and groups should have any rights
whatsoever, certainly not rights over the individuals of the populous. The existence of nuclear weapons is an infringement of your right to bear
How is that possible?
The concept is a variant of Mutually assured destruction, except in this case, it isn't mutual. There's an escalation in an arms race we imagine, a
sequence of responses. Imagine for a moment a hypothetical criminal bandit. Failing to stop them with words, the authorities then send documents. Such
as the issue of a warrant. Failing to secure control with a warrant, they send police.
At this point, the arms race has begun in the obvious, but it actually began with words - the threat is implied that if obedience is not the outcome,
then the warrant will be issued. The warrant is a threat implied, speaking of police. The police then use words or physical force with the threat of
prison, should compliance fail. But the prison is merely another threat, for anyone who does not want to be captured and held prisoner, or attempts to
escape prison, shall be met with more violence, in the form of clubs, man handling, electrocution, poison gas, and eventually, firearms.
This is about where most people's comprehension of the second amendment stops. But the second amendment isn't about police. It's about rebels fighting
the super power that was the British Empire. They did not defeat the British with flintlock pistols and fisticuffs. They defeated the British with
Naval Ships, Espionage, Black powder explosives, and Cannons. Armies marched not just with muskets, but with Cannons and Mortars. If George Washington
had missiles, would have have used them? Absolutely. If George Washington had Nuclear Weapons, would he have used them?
If a country were being conquered, and there were only a dozen freedom fighters left, and millions were in prison camps or otherwise subservient like
the citizens of New York City during Washington's era, would you, as a captured and occupied former citizen desire for those freedom fighters to be
limited to muskets, or would you want them to have access to cannons? Would you want them to have access to larger weapons? More technologically
advanced weapons? Would you want them to be able to use satellites, or smart bombs? Stealth drones perhaps, so that they didn't all die in one battle,
but could press the enemy out of your lands?
And if you were them, what weapons would you want, if you had to take back your country?
That answers the fundamental question of "why" the second amendment existed.
But why address weapons in terms of area effect?
Because somewhere, you are going to think "rocket launcher?" or "Mortar", and ask if civilians can own tanks.
"can civilians own tanks". Isn't really a question under the second amendment. Asking the question says more about your philosophical perspective of
what a citizen, what militia, and what powers the state has, than it says about your capacity for logic. Every weapon becomes obsolete at some point.
It may take centuries, but like the development of chain mail and plate armor, and later thin skinned tanks and bunkers, every weapon made by man has
at some point been overcome by some other man made defense, and then every defense has been later defeated by some greater weapon - the estoc vs.
plate, the three blade bayonet vs. soft armor in the trenches, the anti tank rifles and rockets in world wars, and the bunker busters used in Desert
Wars of the late 20th century.
So I ask again, what is the reasonable area effect for a civilian weapon? Is a weapon meant to defeat a burglar, or an army?
This brings to question the value of the individual vs. the collective. If you imagine yourself in some 1980s Escape from New York/Warriors dystopian
thriller (or the more comical and modern Purge), there's you, and there's a running scene in an urban environment, and there's anywhere from 2 to 100
people chasing you. Perhaps a gang, an angry mob, or a protest went wrong and now an army of whatever political position you oppose is now trying to
This scenario answers the question "How many bullets should a gun be able to shoot". As to other conventional weapons of "war", if you are being
chased by people in tanks, or you happen to be one of the many people who died in the Ruby Ridge and Waco events, you'll kindly notice that more than
"police" showed up to issue the Warrant.
Now we have come full circle, and returned to the principle of Escalation. Because they wont stop at police. They will call the ATF, the FBI, or
whatever your Country has as its equivalent. There will be SWAT. Eventually, that failing, they will call in the National Guard...
wait.. but you thought the National Guard was the militia.
They aren't. As soon as you recognize an escalation motivated by despotism inevitably leads to dominion over the national guard, you recognize the
national guard isn't the militia, and the national guard isn't you. The national guard isn't the second amendment. The national guard is just an
academic remodeling of the army with some extra red tape determining which line of authority gets first dibs. The national guard is no different from
the Army, in as much as Sheriffs are no different from City Police or Highway Patrol, when it comes to the rights of the everyman, vs. the rights of
"authority". A badge or uniform authorized by a populous to have privileges the rest of the populous does not, is NOT a militia.
Well Regulated, perhaps is the real question.
edit on 25-2-2018 by skynet2015 because: reason