Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[Perd Hapley]

Well, sucks that it's 2012 then, doesn't it?    


Maybe if we all write our kongresskritters we can persuade them to change the law and go back to those that prevail in 1791.  I'd be all for it.

Are you trying to say that the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) outlawed canon, which had been legal before then?

Or are you saying that the Second Amendment left canon unregulated?

Or are you just admitting that you were wrong, and switching to a discussion of current law?

It doesn't have to "distinguish" between small arms and artillery.  It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  It is OBVIOUSLY refering to those "arms" which can be kept and borne.

You will forgive me if I am slow to embrace a constitutional hermeneutic that seems only to have arisen over the weekend. You have already expressed your view, and Scalia's view, that "the right to keep and bear arms" refers only to small arms. You don't have to keep repeating your belief - I am aware of it. But until Mr. Scalia or yourself provides some reason why the phrase should be interpreted in this way, I must continue to regard it as fantastical, misleading, and prejudicial to our basic human rights.

Still, you may feel free to explain why the keeping of arms must be combined with the bearing of the arms, in order for the keeping to be legitimate. I don't think the amendment has usually been read that way.

The second amendment to the Constition contains no understanding whatsoever that "citizens owned vessels equipped with artillery pieces."  Where in the second amendment do we see "vessels with artillery pieces?"

I didn't say it was in the second amendment; I referred to the whole Constitution. You will see it about half-way down the eighth section of Article 1. Now be sure to read the Constitution and all its amendments more carefully than you read my post!

If you can find a privateer today, then I wish you and him the best of luck.  I think a galleon like in Wikipedia's article would last about three seconds against a modern armed navy.  And if you want to buy a modern warship, then I hope you're richer than George Soros, 'cause it's 'spensive as ****to buy and maintainance is even worse!
The days of private people owning ships as effective as those old privateers are long, long past.  

That hardly has any bearing on the subject at hand. The point is simply that our Constitution presumes that private citizens will own weapons such as naval cannon, which they could hardly "bear."

[TommyGunn]

Are you trying to say that the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) outlawed canon, which had been legal before then?

Or are you saying that the Second Amendment left canon unregulated?

Or are you just admitting that you were wrong, and switching to a discussion of current law?

The word canon does not appear in the second amendment.  If the second amendment were to refer to weapons that are pronounced like that word I am sure that the Founders would spell it correctly.
Actually Fistful what I was doing .... since it obviously escaped your attention, was inviting people who do not like the laws as they stand to write their kongresskritters and ask them to change the law so it's more to their liking.  That's the whole purpose of representative law.
Right now you just can't go out and buy a canon I MEAN CANNON (now you've got ME doing it! ) and such is the nature of the law.  Whining to me about the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of it will not help.

You will forgive me if I am slow to embrace a constitutional hermeneutic that seems only to have arisen over the weekend. You have already expressed your view, and Scalia's view, that "the right to keep and bear arms" refers only to small arms. You don't have to keep repeating your belief - I am aware of it. But until Mr. Scalia or yourself provides some reason why the phrase should be interpreted in this way, I must continue to regard it as fantastical, misleading, and prejudicial to our basic human rights.

Still, you may feel free to explain why the keeping of arms must be combined with the bearing of the arms, in order for the keeping to be legitimate. I don't think the amendment has usually been read that way.

 
Fistful, if you would like to debate Scalia, fine with me.  I suspect he has forgotten more about the Constitution than you will ever know.  
I did not say the 2A refers to small arms, large arms, bear arms, ape arms, or robot arms.  
During Colonial times it was not uncommon for towns, cities and similar establishments to pass specific laws maintaining that each household shall possess and maintain in good order a "firelock" or, to phrase it as we today might, a rifle, along with one pound of powder and one pound of lead.  This was due to the militia system; each adult between 18 and 45 was considered part of the militia and when called for service had to appear with his arm.  That is his weapon, not upper bodily appendage.  
You might recall that the British tried many things -- stamp acts, tea taxes, the Townshend Acts, and such which offended the Colonists and caused them to develop Commitees of Correspondence and other means of trying to convince King George not to be so nasty .... such as tossing a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor.
But the WAR only really began when the Redcoats tried to confiscate the Colonists' weapons and the related gunpowder.
Thus when we debated and ratified the Constition it did occur to our Founders to include protection of our right to keep these weapons.  There is nothing ...."hermeneutic" about this concept at all.  The Founders concept of government allowed for a navy.  It allowed even for a standing army, but added a protection here by limiting its founding to two year periods.  They also felt that the system would work since the citizen would be as well armed as the soldier.  Now you may  say a soldier is "armed" with a Flintlock or a musket, a bolt action Springfield or a Garand, a Thompson SMG or an M-14, or an M-16, but a soldier is NOT armed with a "Man-of-War" (Galleon with lots of lots of cannon projecting from hull openings).  Nor can a soldier "keep and bear" such a vessel.  He might be "borne" across a ocean by such a vessel but only Superman could conceivably be able to "bear" it.
Individuals back in 1776 might have owned a Galleon.  Sure.   But that would be no more protected by the second amendment than my ownership of a pocket calculator.  Or a Rubic's Cube.

I didn't say it was in the second amendment; I referred to the whole Constitution. You will see it about half-way down the eighth section of Article 1. Now be sure to read the Constitution and all its amendments more carefully than you read my post!


That hardly has any bearing on the subject at hand. The point is simply that our Constitution presumes that private citizens will own weapons such as naval cannon, which they could hardly "bear."

 Wrong.  See above I have no intention of being overly repetitive.

[Perd Hapley]

The word canon does not appear in the second amendment.  If the second amendment were to refer to weapons that are pronounced like that word I am sure that the Founders would spell it correctly.
Actually Fistful what I was doing .... since it obviously escaped your attention, was inviting people who do not like the laws as they stand to write their kongresskritters and ask them to change the law so it's more to their liking.  That's the whole purpose of representative law.
Right now you just can't go out and buy a canon I MEAN CANNON (now you've got ME doing it! ) and such is the nature of the law.  Whining to me about the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of it will not help.

I was just asking you to clarify your meaning.

I'm trying to explain some things to you. I explained that the Constitution speaks approvingly of privately-owned artillery. I provided chapter and verse and hyperlink. Mischaracterizing that as whining does not help you understand the Constitution, or its historical context. Nor does whining about my mistaken use of a homophone. Yeah, you caught me. Congratulations.

 
Fistful, if you would like to debate Scalia, fine with me.  I suspect he has forgotten more about the Constitution than you will ever know.  

That is probably true, but it does not mean he can make up new principles of constitutional interpretation out of thin air. You may be credulous enough to take his word for it; I would like to see his explanation for such, especially since he seems willing to infringe our rights with this interpretation.

I did not say the 2A refers to small arms,

That is precisely what you, and Mr. Scalia, have argued, whether you used the words or not. Look up the term "small arms."

You might also look into the term "galleon." It was not the type of ship commonly used in the late 18th century, by British or Americans.

I didn't say it was in the second amendment; I referred to the whole Constitution. You will see it about half-way down the eighth section of Article 1. Now be sure to read the Constitution and all its amendments more carefully than you read my post!


That hardly has any bearing on the subject at hand. The point is simply that our Constitution presumes that private citizens will own weapons such as naval cannon, which they could hardly "bear."

Wrong.  See above I have no intention of being overly repetitive.

Wrong about what? I saw above. There was not much up there.  

[zxcvbob]

Right now you just can't go out and buy a canon I MEAN CANNON (now you've got ME doing it!  ) and such is the nature of the law.  Whining to me about the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of it will not help.

Actually, you can.  Muzzle-loading cannons are completely unregulated.  Exploding artillery shells for said cannon are regulated (destructive device), but not solid cannon balls, grapeshot, etc.

A Civil War cannon might have come in real handy after Katrina, when cops and the national guard were breaking into the houses on high ground and terrorizing the occupants.  Imagine kicking in somebody's door and finding yourself looking down the barrel of an 8-pounder.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, sucks that it's 2012 then, doesn't it?   
Maybe if we all write our kongresskritters we can persuade them to change the law and go back to those that prevail in 1791.  I'd be all for it.

You have argued that cannon were not privately owned in the Constitution's time. I point out that this is not true - cannon were legal to own privately up until 1968 without any regulation whatsoever.

In terms of what was done in the time of the founders and up until recent ages, it matters that we point out what people in the time of the founders actually did.

[TommyGunn]

I was just asking you to clarify your meaning.

I'm trying to explain some things to you. I explained that the Constitution speaks approvingly of privately-owned artillery. I provided chapter and verse and hyperlink. Mischaracterizing that as whining does not help you understand the Constitution, or its historical context. Nor does whining about my mistaken use of a homophone. Yeah, you caught me. Congratulations.

WHERE does it speak "approvingly" of privatly owned artillery?  WHERE?  WHERE?  I do not find the word artillery in the Constitution.
And I wasn't whining about you use of a homophone I was pulling your leg on it.

That is probably true, but it does not mean he can make up new principles of constitutional interpretation out of thin air. You may be credulous enough to take his word for it; I would like to see his explanation for such, especially since he seems willing to infringe our rights with this interpretation.

Scalia made up nothing.  Just because you disagree does not mean Scalia doesn't have a good reason for his interpretation of the 2A.  Don't be too hasty to think I agree with Scalia because I also have problems with what he said, just not in the same areas you seem to lack understanding.

 

That is precisely what you, and Mr. Scalia, have argued, whether you used the words or not. Look up the term "small arms."

You might also look into the term "galleon." It was not the type of ship commonly used in the late 18th century, by British or Americans.
.....

Galleon, gallon, warship, man of war, insert correct word here________________.  
I think you know what I meant.  And if you can call a cannon a canon I will call ________ a galleon.
As to "small arms" I meant "arms."   The type of arms that a man can "keep and bear," as the second amendment says.  I rejected the phrase "small arms" not because I dispute that a rifle is a "small arm" but because I saw no reason to limit my meaning to "small arms" to the exclusion of those that are of any other type than small arms.

I would still like to see some evidence that the second amendment protects an individual right to "keep and bear" any type of weapon that cannot be "kept and borne."  
Stephen P. Halbrook in his treatise That Every Man Be Armed; The Evolution of a Constitutional Right dissects the second amendment logically and with great precision, but does not even touch upon the subject (so far as I can recall or locate in his work) of owning a galle---er, um, really big warships bristling with artillery pieces with unspecified numbers of the letter "n" in their names .

[TommyGunn]

You have argued that cannon were not privately owned in the Constitution's time. I point out that this is not true - cannon were legal to own privately up until 1968 without any regulation whatsoever.

In terms of what was done in the time of the founders and up until recent ages, it matters that we point out what people in the time of the founders actually did.

Yes it does matter, but the fact that the laws now are different does not prove by itself that any constitutional rights have been abrogated, denied, lost, or abridged.
I argued that just because cannon might have been owned in the 18th century, that does not prove said ownership was protected by the Constitution.  People own many items that are not Constitutionally protected.

[longeyes]

Split hairs about what was kosher in 1789 and what wasn't, but the real issue here is whether Scalia (and other conservatives) are really closet members of the Comfortable Class that feels erosion of our Constitutional rights is not only inevitable and permissible but desirable.

Scalia knows what the 2A is all about, but instead he waffles with remarks like "it will have to be decided."  On what basis, sir?  Affrighting the soccer moms? 

Trust no one.

[TommyGunn]

Split hairs about what was kosher in 1789 and what wasn't, but the real issue here is whether Scalia (and other conservatives) are really closet members of the Comfortable Class that feels erosion of our Constitutional rights is not only inevitable and permissible but desirable.

Scalia knows what the 2A is all about, but instead he waffles with remarks like "it will have to be decided."  On what basis, sir?  Affrighting the soccer moms?  

 Trust no one. 

▲▲▲▲▲▲▲ THIS!  
Beyond whether you can own a can(n)on, a phaser, a warship, whatever, one ought not rely on Justice Scalia or anyone else, or even the second amendment itself, for protection.  Only an armed, educated people can be a defense against those who would abridge our rights.

[zxcvbob]

Nor can a soldier "keep and bear" such a vessel.  He might be "borne" across a ocean by such a vessel but only Superman could conceivably be able to "bear" it.

Then wouldnt it be constitutionally protected for Superman, and by extension (via the 14th Amendment) protected for all of us?   

 

[not really where I was planning to go with this, but the Idea Fairy came to me while I was typing something boring about Man o' Wars]

[Perd Hapley]

Man o' Wars? Men o' War? General Attorneys?

[Perd Hapley]

WHERE does it speak "approvingly" of privatly owned artillery?  WHERE?  WHERE? 

Look at what I had just finished saying to you. I gave you chapter and verse, and even linked to the Constitution on a web page for you. Look at Article 1, Sec. 8, the part about "letters of marque and reprisal." It doesn't use the word artillery. It doesn't have to you. It is up to you to learn the history of the Constitution and its time period, so that you will know what it's saying. That's what original intent is all about.

Scalia made up nothing. 

You don't know whether he made it up or not. If you did, you could point me to where others have read the amendment in the same way he does.

[TommyGunn]

Look at what I had just finished saying to you. I gave you chapter and verse, and even linked to the Constitution on a web page for you. Look at Article 1, Sec. 8, the part about "letters of marque and reprisal." It doesn't use the word artillery. It doesn't have to you. It is up to you to learn the history of the Constitution and its time period, so that you will know what it's saying. That's what original intent is all about.

  You don't know whether he made it up or not. If you did, you could point me to where others have read the amendment in the same way he does.

"Letters of marque and reprisal" do not authorise possession of artillery, or protect any right to own it.

Fistful, I have heard the interpretation Scalia made of the 2A long before I saw him just this past sunday on Fox News with Chris Wallace.  I wish I could point you to a source but it's been so long now I can't even recall if it is a book I own or one I borrowed from elsewhere.  If you don't want to believe me then fine we're just going to have to leave it at that.
Have a really, really nice day.

[Perd Hapley]

"Letters of marque and reprisal" do not authorise possession of artillery, or protect any right to own it.

I never said that they did. The point is that the constitution presumes the private ownership of artillery by citizens. Otherwise, there would be no point in issuing the letters.

The second amendment was added later, specifically stating that the national government could not infringe the right of the people to keep their arms. Since cannon were already presumed by the Constitution to be in private hands, it would seem rather difficult to demonstrate that the amendment did not apply to them.

[TommyGunn]

The Constitution can't "presume" anything.  That is absurd. 
A letter of marque and reprisal could just as easily be issued to a Commander of a Naval Battle Group.
This is how we dealt with the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s.

[longeyes]

Just listened to Michael Savage, gun owner and NRA supporter, rant against drum mags and body armor being available to the public.

These discussions arrive at the absurd.  They are not about weapons or rights, they are about the perfectability, or lack thereof, of human nature.  Or is it just male nature?

[Perd Hapley]

The Constitution can't "presume" anything.  That is absurd. 

Dear sir,

It is a commonplace of the English language to speak of a text (whether the Constitution, the Scriptures, the law) as "presuming" certain things. What is meant is that the author(s) of the text held certain beliefs about the world, wrote with those beliefs in mind, and expected the audience to share those same beliefs (or at least be aware of them). On the internet, it has become commonplace to say, "let me Google that for you."

"the Constitution presumes"

"the text presumes"

A letter of marque and reprisal could just as easily be issued to a Commander of a Naval Battle Group.
This is how we dealt with the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s.

Why would a letter of marque or reprisal be issued to a naval ship? The whole purpose of such instruments was to allow civilians to capture foreign-flagged ships. A naval vessel would have as much need for such a letter as a police officer would need a CCW permit to carry a gun on duty. If a government wishes for a naval vessel to capture certain ships, it will simply order the crew to do so.


I confess I am no student of the Barbary conflicts. My limited study of the subject informs me that we responded to the Barbary pirates by (among other things) building a navy. The only reference I've found to letters of marque or reprisal in the Barbary wars was the granting of one such letter to the Grand Turk (a privateer, not a naval vessel). But that was issued too late for them to take part in the conflict.

[TommyGunn]

Dear sir,

It is a commonplace of the English language to speak of a text (whether the Constitution, the Scriptures, the law) as "presuming" certain things. What is meant is that the author(s) of the text held certain beliefs about the world, wrote with those beliefs in mind, and expected the audience to share those same beliefs (or at least be aware of them). On the internet, it has become commonplace to say, "let me Google that for you."

Ineffable twaddle.  What the #### has "Let me 'google" this "presume" anything more than saying "let me "xerox" this assumes the use of a brandname as a verb.  All words have definitions.  Sometimes they change.
If you think " audience (is going to) to share those same beliefs" concerning the ownership of cannon I invite you to find the audience that agrees with you in an audience consisting of Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and every other gungrabber member of congress -- oh, and let's not forget President Empty-suit Obama hisownhighness.
You're never going to get these people on board; it's hard enough to convince the diehard libtard that when the 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," that it does literally mean, "the right of the people."
What you are doing is "presuming" things "not in evidence."  
You need to provide something far more solid than saying a phrase in the constitution "presumes" something especially in a time when its plain meaning (to say nothing of its "presumed" meaning) has come into so much question.

Why would a letter of marque or reprisal be issued to a naval ship? The whole purpose of such instruments was to allow civilians to capture foreign-flagged ships. A naval vessel would have as much need for such a letter as a police officer would need a CCW permit to carry a gun on duty. If a government wishes for a naval vessel to capture certain ships, it will simply order the crew to do so.


I confess I am no student of the Barbary conflicts. My limited study of the subject informs me that we responded to the Barbary pirates by (among other things) building a navy. The only reference I've found to letters of marque or reprisal in the Barbary wars was the granting of one such letter to the Grand Turk (a privateer, not a naval vessel). But that was issued too late for them to take part in the conflict.

"Why would a letter of marque or reprisal be issued to a naval ship?" Because air travel wasn't available back then.  Seriously, what do you expect, President John Adams to issue a letter of marque & reprisal to the Commander of the 82nd airborne?  Back then the only way a country had, really, of projecting power was its navy.  They were not issued to the ship itself, but to those in command of the battle group.

[Perd Hapley]

Ineffable twaddle.  What the #### has "Let me 'google" this "presume" anything more than saying "let me "xerox" this assumes the use of a brandname as a verb.  All words have definitions.  Sometimes they change.
If you think " audience (is going to) to share those same beliefs" concerning the ownership of cannon I invite you to find the audience that agrees with you in an audience consisting of Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and every other gungrabber member of congress -- oh, and let's not forget President Empty-suit Obama hisownhighness.
You're never going to get these people on board; it's hard enough to convince the diehard libtard that when the 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," that it does literally mean, "the right of the people."
What you are doing is "presuming" things "not in evidence."  
You need to provide something far more solid than saying a phrase in the constitution "presumes" something especially in a time when its plain meaning (to say nothing of its "presumed" meaning) has come into so much question.

Dear sir,

I apologize. I don't know any other way to explain the English language to you, other than to show you examples. What is your native language?

Also, how do you expect the authors of the Constitution to know the worldview of 21st-century politicians?

I hope you realize that you're ranting at the authors of the Constitution, who did the presuming. They didn't write, "Congress shall have power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to non-government organizations (not naval ships), who shall be free to own frigates and the cannon to go with them." No, they just wrote "letters of marque and reprisal," and   presumed that the reader would already know what that entailed, or would go and look it up, instead of going off half-cocked on the internetses.

Then they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," without specifying that the amendment applied to the cannon already alluded to. 'Cause that seemed rather obvious.

"Why would a letter of marque or reprisal be issued to a naval ship?" Because air travel wasn't available back then.  Seriously, what do you expect, President John Adams to issue a letter of marque & reprisal to the Commander of the 82nd airborne?  Back then the only way a country had, really, of projecting power was its navy.  They were not issued to the ship itself, but to those in command of the battle group.

Then you can show me a letter of marque and/or reprisal issued to a naval vessel, yes? Or, excuse me, a commander of a battle group. Or if you can find one issued to the 82nd, that would be fine, too.

[TommyGunn]

Get the h#ll off your idiot high-horse, Fistful.  I've FORGOTTEN more about english than you ever knew.
If you think you can show me that the "letters of marque & reprisal" clause in the U.S. Constitution "presumes" private ownsership of ANYTHING, then it's up to you to show me.
I'm NOT "ranting at the authors of the Constitution, who did the presuming," I'm simply TELLING you that you cannot "presume" anything a priori in any one clause that is so far removed from the initial premise without a h#ll of a lot more to back it up than what you've shown.
 

They didn't write, "Congress shall have power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to non-government organizations (not naval ships), who shall be free to own frigates and the cannon to go with them."

AND THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!   [/b] If they'd have done that the matter would have been crystal clear and I wouldn't be arguing with a mumpsimus who tries to pull a sequitor out of his hat that's so far away from the initial premise that even Captain Kirk could never locate in this dimensional space!!!!!!!!!!

Then they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," without specifying that the amendment applied to the cannon already alluded to. 'Cause that seemed rather obvious.

BS it's obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BEAR: v. 1. to support, hold up, 2. to carry on one's person, convey. 3. To carry as if in the mind. 4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing love for others. 5. To have as a visible characteristic. Bearing a scar on his right arm. .....

etcetera.....

There are 14 definitions of "bear" in my dictionary (excluding "bear" as in "Yogi Bear").  None of them provide any meaning that would allow me to say the Constitution provides a right to own a cannon.  
This is the facts in evidence and to say one "presumes" such a right from that is quit simply, wrong.
If our Founders intended to protect such a right they failed.   Utterly.  Completly.  

They may have intended that a letter of marque and reprisal would allow a citizen to equip and use a ship to be used in a militaristic sense, and there is a lot of evidence that is the case, but there was no presumed right to own cannon or armed ships.  The letter was, ina rough way, equivelent to the CCW license we have today.  That is to say the letter was government assignment to equip and use the ship in a government approved manner.  It is different than the CCW in that (in most jurisdictions) you may own a firearm at home without a CCW, the CCW only IDs the individual as having passed a check that he can partake of a right in public.
But the problem today is not what the intent of the Founders was.  The problem today is basically twofold:
1.) The fact is that our current government is NOT going to issue a L of M&R to any private citizen, ever, no how no way no when, if it can be shown -- even once -- or even be presumed to be permissable --that such a letter could be delivered to the commander of a battle group, who has presumably taken an oath to defend the U.S. and obey orders.
2.)  The expense of buying, owning and maintaining modern warships.  Maybe George Soros could actually do this.  I do NOT want Soros anywhere near a warship!!!!  But it is certainly beyond the ability of most people in America, or any other country.  That's just the way it is.  And there's no point in retorting "well in theory if someone did have the $$$$"  because:  SEE #1.

[HankB]

They may have intended that a letter of marque and reprisal would allow a citizen to equip and use a ship to be used in a militaristic sense, and there is a lot of evidence that is the case, but there was no presumed right to own cannon or armed ships.  The letter was, ina rough way, equivelent to the CCW license we have today.  

Are you asserting that arming a merchant vessel or other privately owned ship without a letter of marque and reprisal was illegal in the 18th century, at least in the eyes of the men who included that clause in the Constitution? If so, I'd really be interested in knowing if you have some contemporary U.S. legal references for that position.

The expense of buying, owning and maintaining modern warships.  Maybe George Soros could actually do this.  I do NOT want Soros anywhere near a warship!!!!  But it is certainly beyond the ability of most people in America, or any other country.  That's just the way it is.

I don't see many private individuals equipping and operating even a modern frigate or missile boat. But a lightly armed Q-ship - call it a modern armed merchantman - is certainly a possibility; cost would be millions - ok, maybe tens of millions - of dollars, and it wouldn't be capable of slugging it out with a genuine warship, but if the target was, say, Somali pirates, it's absolutely possible.

[Balog]

I'm absolutely staggered both by how very wrong you are, as well as the massive arrogance you show in proclaiming your wrongness. Literally baffles me.

[kgbsquirrel]

....cost would be millions - ok, maybe tens of millions - of dollars, and it wouldn't be capable of slugging it out with a genuine warship, but if the target was, say, Somali pirates, it's absolutely possible.

Oddly enough, some friends and I crunched the numbers a while ago regarding converting a small container ship to a Q-boat. Cost was roughly 4-5 million USD for initial purchase and outfitting with an annual operating budget of about 1.2 million USD. Armament was several dual M2 .50 mounts, two refitted VADS mounts, a bofors 57mm Mk-110 and various small arms.


As to Tommy.....     That is all.

[TommyGunn]

Are you asserting that arming a merchant vessel or other privately owned ship without a letter of marque and reprisal was illegal in the 18th century, at least in the eyes of the men who included that clause in the Constitution? If so, I'd really be interested in knowing if you have some contemporary U.S. legal references for that position.
I don't see many private individuals equipping and operating even a modern frigate or missile boat. But a lightly armed Q-ship - call it a modern armed merchantman - is certainly a possibility; cost would be millions - ok, maybe tens of millions - of dollars, and it wouldn't be capable of slugging it out with a genuine warship, but if the target was, say, Somali pirates, it's absolutely possible.

I'm not asserting anything of the sort.  
If anyone wants to own a warship today IMO they are going to be dealing with a decidedly unfriendly-to privately owned warships government.  Laws are going to have to be changed or atleast clarified to make it possible.

I'm absolutely staggered both by how very wrong you are, as well as the massive arrogance you show in proclaiming your wrongness. Literally baffles me.

Awwwww, poor baby.

As to Tommy.....     That is all.

It really warms the cockles of my heart that I could provide so much entertainment to so many people in this thread.
Fistful has the idea that "letteres of marque & reprisal" "presume" things when nothing could be any more wrong.  
Either there is intention in words or there is not.

If you people are assuming I approve of or support the laws as they stand you couldn't be more wrong.  I am merely insisting that words mean things and that "presuming" something -- in the Constitution or elsewhere -- is never going to provide any protection of your rights/our rights.  Ain't gonna happen.

Look at class II weapons and what's happened with them as a example.  In the 1939 Miller case it was argued that the 2A only protected guns that are of use to an army, or militia.   This case dealt with a shortened shotgun.  The case is generally believed to have been resolved to mean that the NFA of 1934 (which covered these guns as well as full auto) was Constitutional and thus the law's effects continue to this day, with added effects of other laws even further restricting this class of weapons.
Now the initial concept that the 2A protected only militia weapons was almost certainly wrong.  The 2A states the right "shall not be infringed."  That means not only that you can't legally ban every type of firearm except that last flintlock, you can't legally even start because its' the start that's the infringement's initiation.
But if the 2A protected military weapons how come this case (Miller) was resolved that way --we now prohibit these guns, or tax them.  First of all, it didn't; the Supreme Court remanded Miller back to the state court, but Miller and his cohort were either dead or missing so that didn't happen.
The Solicitor General in the case refered only to the shotgun in question -- by its serial number -- and the infered argument was IT could NOT be shown to have been useful to any soldier so IT could be taxed or proscribed.  See how the slight of hand works?
So today we have wound up with a twisted abortion of a Constitutional right.  And yet we have people who want to "presume" things NOT covered in definitions laws or elsewhere.  
No one hear is helping anyone by insisting that some two hundred year old clause "presumes or assumes" anything.  That was lost, in 1934 -- if it even made it that far.  
Better arguments are needed that depend upon their plain clarity of meaning.
We're fighting politicians who lack understanding of the founders, or who have no respect for them, or what they intended, and if we want to resist and to prevail, we need to do better, not sink to their level.
So far this whoile thread has been one massive FAIL in that department.
Am I clear now?

Or not............

[brimic]

Tommygun's and Scalia's stance: an object can be illegal because the law says its illegal.
Yep, makes perfect sense if you graduated from the school of circular logic.