“The Second Amendment is not absolute. What else do you want? Cannons? Artillery is only for the Army.”
By Miguel.GFZ
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
It’s well documented that during the Revolutionary war privately owned cannons were used.
For that matter, the Constitution explicitly covers “letters of marque”, which only make sense with privately owned cannons, since that’s what privateers use for doing their job.
The Committees of Vigilance in San Fransisco had several cannon, and used them, when they had to take over San Fran back in the day. Took the city away from corrupt government and criminals, and held it, twice, while waiting for Federal Troops to come in.
That was the 1850’s.
And lots of private cannon were used in the beginning of the Civil War.
I’ll take “Things that don’t suck for 2000,” Alex.
How I argue against the “So, you are saying that ‘shall not be infringed’ means people can have nukes?” is to say:
“That is exactly what it means. If you don’t want it to mean that, there is a way to change it. It is called the Amendment process. You should have no trouble getting two thirds of both houses and three fourths of the state legislatures on board with adding a “no nukes” provision to the Constitution.
What we don’t do is simply ignore the parts of the Constitution that we don’t like, because at that point we cease being a nation of laws and reduce ourselves to despotism. ”
If the person is rational, we continue discussing. Most people who make the “nukes” argument aren’t rational.
Debating people who cannot reason is useless.
Exactly, arguments to the absurd demonstrate an immature mind.
Oh, and why are nukes illegal? (HINT: They are not. Technically.)
IANAL warning, but I do not believe nuclear weapons are classified on the NFA list as a destructive device. If I understand correctly, that would mean you can buy one without a background check, or the dreaded tax stamp.
The reason individuals do not own nuclear weapons has nothing to do with them being weapons of mass destruction. It has everything to do with cost, and difficulty to create a working bomb. Access to the fissionable material in sufficient quantity is the final nail in the coffin.
I do realize that most of the tech is strictly controlled, and (again IANAL warning) I believe possession of materials that can be used for making a nuclear bomb is not legal for the average person to possess.
Besides, how would one go about using a nuclear bomb in a legal and responsible manner?
Nukes are illegal not because of the NFA (though they probably have been outlawed if they existed in 1934) but the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended. In order to posses or process “Special Nuclear Material” i.e enriched uranium-235 or any other fissionable material like plutonium-239 you need a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In addition, the U.S. is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which might block private ownership of a nuke.
I remember some years ago an article by a guy who built himself an 8 inch howitzer — black powder muzzle loading type. Perfectly legal because of that. As I recall, it was loaded with an ounce of powder and a bowling ball. Range — a mile or so.
I believe it was built out of a chunk of well casing with a half inch plate welded to it to close the end.
There are lots of homemade cannon, made using modern pipes or even cast and bored, that use black powder.
You can also buy them. Many a Civ War and Rev War reenactor or reenactor group have purchased them.
And back in the day, “Junkyard Wars” often had “Let’s make a cannon” episodes.
My home town, New Boston NH, is the proud owner of the Molly Stark cannon, a revolutionary war brass cannon captured from the British in the Battle of Bennington. It is fired every 4th of July by the Lafayette Artillery (blank only, I’ve never heard of them firing an actual ball with it). Some day I should see about joining that group, that would be neat.
Molly Stark was the wife of General Stark, who won that battle; I think he named it after her. Or maybe his soldiers did.