Not Just About Guns

Clayton Cramer and Dave Kopel, along with Joe Olson, have collaborated on a new Second Amendment law review arguing that knives are protected by the Second Amendment as readily as firearms. Likewise, I think prohibitions on stun weapons and chemical sprays, which exist in some states and municipalities are likewise unconstitutional.

9 thoughts on “Not Just About Guns”

  1. Consider that the Founders gave Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal — basically temporary grants of military status for ship owners. They expected that individuals would own fully capable war ships.

  2. As one fond of swords, I am a very big advocate that the 2nd Amendment covers everything from knives, to guns, to laser blasters.

    In fact, it’s one of the things I’d like to see changed about the Pennsylvania LTCF. And have it be changed to License To Carry Arms.

  3. I would say that every weapon that can be aimed and provides no collateral damage should be legal under the 2nd Amendment.

    Like, mortars, cannons, artillery? Legal.

    Missiles? Illegal.

    WWII Era bombs? Illegal.

    JDAMs? Illegal.

    Nukes? Illegal.

    Warships? Legal, though due to the above they should be diesel/gas only. I’m a little iffy about having Uranium floating around in today’s present political clime. Being armed with anything explosive should be well… I came back to edit this paragraph due to more thoughts on the next paragraph so read the below and apply it to this. If they make normal Ball ammo for naval cannons, that should be legal. Cause seriously, take the ingenuity of gun owners and the competitions they come up with and add that to war ships? Man that would be epic.

    Fighter planes and the like should have a permitting process, and then only can be armed if someone is flying in/near a potential hotzone that is inside the United States (AKA, unarmed at all times at the present moment, but legal if we are invaded), or if the owner of the plane has a letter of marque or some other kind of government permission to engage planes/ships/troops of a hostile enemy (imagine being in Oregon and having a letter of marque to destroy North Korean forces in the process of attacking Japan/West Coast/Canada/Etc).

    I think it all comes down to is it accurate enough that when used properly, will hit your target no matter what and nothing else, and assuming that target is something that either A, only targets the bad guys, or B, able to be controlled/ran/bought with a large number of other people, should be legal. WWII Era bombs, missiles, and JDAMs are aimed, but there is a chance of collateral damage.

    I doubt that will all come to pass, but I’d settle for fully automatic guns and artillery. I’d assume the artillery would be heavily regulated, but if you have the ability to afford one, have it stored safely no matter what, along with the ammo, a signing out process involving the local police and telling the police exactly where you will be, where you will be shooting, and how much you will be shooting, no one should have a problem with it. They would be sort of like rich people toys. Like Lamborghini’s, private planes, and incumbent congress people.

    1. I disagree with everything but the nukes. I can use all the other weapons and not cause harm to unintended targets. I can’t with a nuke or any WMD. And those weapons kill long after they are deployed. That being said, I believe the current state of nuclear weapons is such that it is more detrimental to national security to have them now.

      On a side note I’m glad to see the topic finally coming up.

    2. Artillery with no collateral damage? Not so much. I have stood in one building while a JTAC guided a fast mover to put a JDAM into the building right beside us. I would NEVER do the same thing with artillery.

  4. I guess I never thought of it, but why wouldn’t knives be protected? Obvious when one thinks about it.

Comments are closed.