Coyote wrote:For that we'd have to get into the finer points and intentions of militia laws. I do not dabble in explosives beyond what I do for my Combat Engineer duty in the Reserves. However, I can say that I have never been issued a pipe bomb in my entire time in the Army, which is subtantial. Grenades, yes, C4, det cord, etc, yes, but not pipe bombs. Someone who knows more about why explosives and pipe bombs are not allowed would have to take this one up, since I neither know much about it or care overmuch about using explosives.
I'd wager it is because explosives have more of a history being used for terrorism than for direct combat; explosives can be set and then left to blow up when someone else activates something-- ie, a boobytrap-- and there is also not always a way for the bomb-maker to control who detonates the device (see the problem with land mines left in third-world countries).
I'm using pipebombs as an example of a weapon in which is highly illegal and I know carries a substantial criminal penalty for even possessing. You are focusing too much on the work and not enough on the example. I also know that improved explosives aren't that hard to make; dangerous to make, certainly, first and foremost to the person attempting to make them, but not difficult with basic chemistry knowledge and a recipe. Further, its something that militia nutcases in the US like to brew up and you know full well that some do. And if you were ready for the Suddenly Tyrannical US Government to show up and put you into the FEMA Concentration Camps, they are entirely a sensible weapon to have on hand.
However, we make them illegal, even though a strict reading of the second amendment promises not to infringe on the right to bear arms. It is pretty damn infringing to put someone in jail for several years per device, so the second amendment is interpreted as to define what "arms" are. That is the point. It is entirely up to the government to define such things, so to say that this weapon ban or that weapon ban is unconstitutional isn't true, because the government defines what counts.
That's the point that you keep dancing around.
I don't feel I am. The restriction on explosives seems reasonable to me and I never saw a reason why it shouldn't be.
REASONABLE to you. It is not a Constitutional issue, even though the strictest reading of the second amendment would have IEDs legal, since they are certainly arms that people use to fight other people.
Seriously, man, I have more control over where my one bullet goes than I do over where several hundred shards of shrapnel goes. If I have to answer to a judge & jury about an errant bullet, I can say with definition, "I was aiming for X". You can't claim any such control with a bomb-- how can anyone say with a reasonable degree of truth that they threw a grenade or pipe bomb at an attacker and made sure the explosion only targeted the one person they were "aiming" at?
You are dancing around the point. It doesn't matter if a gun is more controllable than an explosive, show me in the Second Amendment where it says ANYTHING about the nature of the weapon in question. We restrict certain weapons because they are unreasonable, which puts paid to the notion that a weapon's ban is automatically unconstitutional. Whether or not the ban is REASONABLE is another matter.
I know for a fact from personal experience that explosions do not always do exactly as they are expected, no matter how well engineered they are. You admit as much by saying that demo engineers are held repsonsible for things that go wrong. Remember, a demo engineer isn't doing a hasty IED ambush with minutes to spare, a controlled det of a building is going to be a long, careful, painstaking process that will be overseen by all sorts of demo and safety engineers-- and even then, they do not always go as planned.
Fine, conceded. However, they are very often right and tend to have a great safety record, particularly in the United States. That's why the punishments are so steep when they foul up. The same cannot be said for gun owners, who by far have a larger accident rate where they shoot something they didn't mean to, including themselves. In fact, you have personal experience. Who is more likely to accidentally kill someone or mess up something they weren't supposed to, someone who works with explosives or someone with a gun out shooting?
It would seem to be-- you just argued yourself right there why limiting explosives is a good idea. Which side are you arguing?
I'm saying limiting explosives are a good idea, precisely because they are so dangerous. However, under a strict reading of the Constitution, we can't infringe on them. What this does is put paid the notion that weapon's bans are inherently unconstitutional, as you were suggesting above.
If you want to argue in favor of pipe bombs as legitimate militia weapons, and weapons suitable for personal defense, by all means, be my guest. I'll watch. Burden of proof is on you to prove such a claim.
You are the one who always argues "personal responsibility" and the government trusting its law-abiding citizens with weapons. You are the person who's said that the government should just trust gun onwers to be responsible with their weapons and not use them illegally. It's your argument, not mine. Given how much you've been trying to dodge the actual discussion here, I'm not surprised you are misreading me.
Um, no, not really. No one else seems to be arguing for pipe bombs. There is no NPBA, or National Pipe Bomb Association, demanding rights that I know of. Unless you want to start one.
When you are ready to stop dancing the point, we can actually have a discussion here.
We did? What's this "we" thingy, Kemo Sabe? I am not the one arguing in favor of pipe bombs.
No one is. I'm using them as an example of a rightfully banned class of weapon, which you and I seem to be in agreement should be banned. Since we are in agreement, you concede that weapon's bans are Constitutional.
Refer back to Miller for what constitutes a "militia weapon". They only specifically dealt with sawed-off shotguns, but it is a start. And the 1934 Act limited availability of fully-automatic weapons to the general populace. And as I have mentioned several times in this thread, in the Heller case, the notion of an individual Constitutional right to own weapons does not preclude some controls or regulations.
What is left undefined is what, exactly, those controls, regulations or restrictions can be. Some of this will be outlined in the upcoming case challenging Chicago's gun ban (although I have a feeling that it will mostly end up focusing on Constitutional 'incorporation'). Technically, yes, all Heller did was say, definitively, that an individual American has the right to keep and bear arms. Now they have to decide what those "arms" may be.
We are absolutely in agreement now, in sharp constrast to what you said above when you claimed that a de facto weapons ban was unconstitutional.
Such a ban isn't unconstitutional, because government can simply define whatever they want as not covered by the right to bear arms and what is actually suitable for militia purposes.
According to the precedent set by Miller, it is established that "arms" must be suitable for militia purposes. So that narrows it somewhat. They may have to focus on settling two other things: what, exactly, is the militia, and what, exactly, is it's mission to be so that we know what "militia arms" are "suitable"?
Once that is determined, depending on how the Chicago case goes, and which of the many interpretations of the Cruikshank case wins out with regards to the "priviledges and immunities" enjoyed nationawide by all citizens of America within the borders of America, regardless of which State thay are in, will win out. Then we may see a rule that states that militia weapons may be standardized by certain types. However, all this is speculation. A lot of precedent will have to be gone over. This will be determined by the Supreme Court.
In the highly unlikely event that pipe bombs become recognized as militia weapons.
No doubt, but that begs to obvious question of whether or not you need to be in a militia to use them and whether or not you can use them when you aren't on duty in a militia. I would think that would be a dangerous game to play, if it was decided that you have the right to bear and keep arms; keep them at the local militia armory when you aren't on duty in the militia.
In a way, though, this reinforces the notion that certain arms are considered suitable for civilian ownership, while others are not. "Free Speech" or not, you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, so the old saying goes. Is that a limit of Free Speech? Yes, technically, it is. But it has been deemed to be a reasonable restriction. Pipe bombs at some point were determined to be the same status-- a restiction on the 2nd Amendment, but a reasonable one. And actually, you can use words in general speech that are banned on electronic media-- in books, in movies, in every day life. There is no "allowed areas" where you can detonate pipe bombs... there's just places where you are not likely to get caught, or, far enough outside city limits or territorial waters where there are no applicable laws to pursue in the matter.
Exactly. This applies to various gun bans as well. Hence, a weapon's ban on firearms isn't unconstitutional, the argument is more about whether or not they are reasonable in the person's opinion.
I don't see how; the military doesn't use pipe bombs, so they are not applicable to militia purposes; and I agree that there are restrictions placed on the 2nd Amendment which are reasonable while you seem to be arguing that since the 2nd Amendment doesn't spell out what is allowed, that anything should be allowed.
That is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing! What the hell is wrong with you, Coyote? I'm putting out that there are entirely reasonable weapons bans exist, therefore the notion that any weapon's ban is specifically unconstitional is wrong! You are the one arguing that weapon's bans are unconsititutional, not me.
