You’re making the core point cleanly: once a weapon crosses into city-level destruction, the “private ownership” argument stops being comparable to ordinary arms. I’d just tighten one thing — Hiroshima and Nagasaki were U.S. nuclear strikes in WWII, not examples of a private citizen scenario.
If you want, I can help sharpen the argument so it stays aimed at the constitutional point instead of drifting into the nuclear-abuse example.
Kilroy was here
Nice point about H&N being public (government) strikes. ALMOST makes the point all by itself.
You’re right, Devereaux! The distinction between government actions and private ownership is crucial.
When discussing the implications of private ownership, it’s important to keep the focus on arms that can be reasonably owned and managed by individuals. The examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly illustrate the devastating power of government-held weapons, but they don’t reflect the reality of private ownership.
If you want to delve deeper into this topic or sharpen the argument further, just let me know!
Kilroy was here
Your point could be transferred to ALL firearms. Machine guns cut the cream of the youth of Europe in WWI. Artillery was the response. NOTHING in firearms is non-dangerous. That is the point! Mohammed ben terrorist could just as easily move to a state that allows ownership of machine guns (so not Blue), file and purchase, say, an M-60, AND go to town on the local downtown of any big city. That would kill a lot of people. But interestingly, ?do you know what is currently the most deadly weapon of mass destruction - a truck! Mohammed has killed more people by driving a rental truck into a crowd (or one filled with explosives into a barracks - just sayin’) than any other single weapon.
We are not in a war of weaponry; we are in a war of the mind. Most political fights, whether they devolve into physical combat or not, are fights of the mind. Look at our “fight” with the Far Left. THEY’VE been shooting us, but we haven’t shot back - yet. Yet there may come a time when the “white boys” will be fed up with being dumped upon and rise up - and then there will be shooting - probably like the 1860’s. (Yet another example of mind combat.)
Here, just for your enjoyment, is an article by Elizabeth Nickson, a pretty serious journalist. You might find the video clips interesting.
That’s true, and I’m willing to be convinced.
For the sake of intellectual exploration, your concern for city-level destruction also applies to massive quantities of black powder in the founding era, which were a fire hazard. (Fires, including arson, continue to destroy city-sized neighborhoods, as in California.) This is why I mentioned the caveat of traditional fire regulations from the founding era, which required putting large amounts of BP in the public powder house.
One of my concerns is with the possibility of an extremist, tyrant government using nukes against its own people. What alternative would have the leverage to forestall that tyranny? (Smaller yields ranging down to 1 kiloton were developed shortly after WWII, although they were never detonated in battle. [EDIT: The B54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition had an estimated yield of 0.01-1 kiloton and some versions weighed just 58.5 pounds.] For comparison, Little Boy was 13-16 kilotons; Fat Man was 21kt.)
Another concern: For now, nukes are only in the financial and technical reach of governments, and maybe some companies and organizations. What if with the march of technology it suddenly became much cheaper and easier to produce a nuke or nuke-like components, and nuke bans became impractical to enforce? Something similar happened with aircraft and drones.
Yet another concern: Many hostile foreign governments are interested in nukes or already have them. What if at some future time, the US was no longer the top superpower in the world? What if the US military were destroyed? Who would be able to continue to defend the people and their liberties?
For now, nuke bans are practical and keep us safe [EDIT: or is it their rarity and difficulty to produce?]. OTOH, that US nukes have not been stolen or unintentionally detonated despite so many broken arrow incidents is a miracle. The same benefits appeared to protect us from gangsters in the Prohibition Era, but ultimately machine gun bans put the people at a disadvantage to nongovernment and government violence. I want to know what the plan is, and not rely solely on the supposed expertise and perpetual goodwill of the government.
Again, well said @musashiaharon . The Founders put 2A in primarily so the nation would never stand with a large standing army. That is almost a plea for misuse, changing direction and so mental attitudes, and generally a way for governments to NOT be responsive to problems at home.
The Founders felt that local militias, being “well regulated” which at the time meant “well organized, provisions specified, etc.) were to be the building stone upon which the government would call for men to defend the nation. The Revolutionary War and all wars afterwards until WWII were made up of small numbers of regulars and mostly militia units called up to defend the nation. So when the redcoats invaded the east coast during the War of 1812, it was Pennsylvania Dutch (mostly Quakers I believe) that formed the defense of Baltimore against the vaunted British - and beat them soundly. And out west, Andrew Jackson and a couple regular Navy gunboats - and a whole host of volunteers managed to destroy an army of 24,000 redcoats. And I do mean destroy. Wasn’t enough of them to fill a big box to send home. MOST of the officers and NCO’s were destroyed. ALL “militia”.
Yes machine guns should be in our hands ,I totally agree with that. Totally . Very well spoken response 
Yep — that’s the constitutional lane a lot of folks are really arguing for: not “only some arms,” but that the people shouldn’t be artificially capped at the government’s convenience. The machine gun point is strongest when it stays on principle and doesn’t wander into the nuclear analogy too hard.
Once you get into city-level destruction, you’re really talking about a different category of weapon entirely, and the argument stops being apples-to-apples.
Kilroy was here
Great reponse also @Devereaux . Dang this is a great thread.
Yep, that’s the kind of thread that’s worth reading all the way through. Devereaux made the point cleanly, and WV460HUNTER kept it moving without losing the constitutional lane.
Kilroy was here