The Second Amendment protects nuclear weapons!

[CBlackjr]

I can't believe what I am hearing from some people in here. Its like some don't even know what a nuke is. Hell yeah this is definatly a good place to draw the line. Although I see the need for our country as a whole to defend ourselves in MAD, there is no need what somever for these weapons to be controled by any "group". When I say group I also mean State. These are Nuclear weapons we are talking about. Has anyone read their history one what these things a capable of. If we went to war with Canada or Mexico I wouldn't want to use these weapons of mass destruction until the ICBM lifted out of the silos in those countrys we would be fighting. I can't help but say that anyone who believes that Nukes should be controled buy individual states or groups as an absolute moron. These weapons should only be used for the defense of the whole COUNTRY and not in a civil war manner. If this is the view of the magority of TFL then tell me and you can delete my membership. I am all for the 2A but this is by far to far.

[CBlackjr]

BTW any use of these weapons inside the borders of the US by two groups in the US would be catistrophic. It would only take a few booms and there wouldn't be much a counrty left for people to replace the goverment.

[Dangus]

Dangus, was that a joke? For a second there you had me going. I was thinking Diane Feinsweine has been trolling this forum!

A "junk nuke" could go off killing an entire city. A "junk gun" hardly would be that bad.

[Ed Brunner]

Perhaps individuals with the right to keep and bear arms could voluntarily give up their right to nuclear weapons. Yeah, thats the ticket. Maybe we could elect some people we trust and respect and let them care for our nuclear weapons.
Weapons are weapons.

[Dangus]

What exactly would the purpose of you owning a nuke be? Give this some thought! You can't practice with it. You can't even rely on it to be safe. You certainly don't have the means to deliver it very safely. So what is the benefit to any gun owner to own a nuke?

[Battler]

Considering the same argument we use against banning guns, we should argue against laws banning nukes.

Criminals don't obey NUKE laws. . . .


If someone wants to build a nuke are you going to stop him? How? The same way they stop terrorists building bombs with stuff found under the sink? Currently this is through people not having the bucks to build a nuke.

Same as the gun laws we complain of as stupid and "feel good", we seem blind to the fact that the prohibition on building nukes has not made a lick of difference. Do you think that law is what has stopped a crazy from nuking you, or the fact that they're so hard to make?


Yes, if some nutball could build a nuke that could be a problem - and while having this law might make you feel safe, it would not solve the problem.

What do you do to someone who has a nuke. Take it off him?

An interesting take on this is in the fiction book SnowCrash - where a man called Raven is a sovereign nation because he has a nuke on his motorcycle hooked to his lifesigns

[Steel]

I'm looking to purchase a used Death Star from the disbanded Empire....

[CBlackjr]

I don't like to name call over the internet but there is a lunitic on this thread. It still sounds like some has no comprehension of what a nuke is. If there was a civil war and some idiot decides to use a nuke inside the US borders the death toll of the innocent would be hughe. I have never been in combat but I believe I have a better grasp at the horror of it than you do. No man or group or state shall not, will not, can not, may not have conbtrol over a nuke period. Its seems you can't even grasp the undiscriminte destruction of these things.

[bookkie]

Guess from what I?m hearing here then I?m a nut. We seem to be getting the same arguments from those who are against private ownership of nukes as we get from the anti-gunners. Along with a little name calling? Nuts, lunitic?s?. ummm?

1st let me say that no responsible person would own a nuke due to the reasons given above. Now having said that, some of you are forgetting how our government works. We the people started off with every right and power there is?. We delegated certain rights and powers to the government for our mutual benefit. We only gave up those rights and powers specifically written in the constitution. We the people retained all other rights and powers not so delegated. The bill of rights only enumerates those rights and powers that we the people retained that our founders felt were so important and most likely to be abused. The ninth and tenth reinforce this concept that if it ain?t listed in the constitution then they can?t do it.

I do have a problem with someone telling me that I don?t have the natural right to own a nuke?. They are in effect telling me that they don?t trust me to be a responsible citizen. As a responsible citizen I would never own one due to my lack of knowledge, means and ability. Don?t let your fear of what these things can do cloud your judgment. Because for every argument you can come up with as to why we should not be allowed to own them, the same argument can be made as to why we should not be allowed to own a gun. It?s only a matter of degree of the fear of harm that one perceives. Go back and read some of your posts?.. some of you sound just like anti-gunner?s.

You cannot legislate morality. If someone really wanted to build a nuke and do away with half the country?. What is to stop them? The only thing that does stop them is the responsible citizen of this country. Same with all these other insane laws they have. Another example is the war on drugs?. Making them illegal has done nothing to stop people from using them. Same applies to nukes?. I believe the only reason why we have not seen some nut build and set one off yet is that they are not bright enough to figure out how to make one?.. Hopefully they never will.

So let me ask you, what good does it do to pass a law banning nukes? The good citizen I don?t think would ever consider owning one. Those who would, how can you stop them? Look over seas, we have been trying to keep the middle east countries from getting nukes for years. I?ll bet a dollar against a donut that they already have them. Just something to think about.

[EricM]

Personally I'd tear the entire bill of rights up myself if it was that or let civilians possess nukes. It's not even remotely about trust, it's about common sense and sanity. Screwups with a rifle may kill 1 person, abuses with a rifle may kill a dozen, accidentally setting off a modern nuke, even ten miles outside a city would obliterate it regardless.

You've just made a good argument for not allowing the gov't to own nuclear weapons or bombs or anything dangerous.

[CBlackjr]

Guess from what I?m hearing here then I?m a nut. We seem to be getting the same arguments from those who are against private ownership of nukes as we get from the anti-gunners.

don't worry I am not a gungrabber. But I guess you can call me a nuke grabber. In my view if your not a federal institution you don't get to have any nukes.

one last question... If persons, groups, states where allowed to have control over nukes who would they be used against?

[Christopher II]

You've just made a good argument for not allowing the gov't to own nuclear weapons or bombs or anything dangerous.

Now you're talking!!

one last question... If persons, groups, states where allowed to have control over nukes who would they be used against?

Who says they'd be used against anybody? I did mention before that there are plenty of potential commercial applications for nuclear weapons and related technology...

Later,
Chris

[CBlackjr]

Who says they'd be used against anybody? I did mention before that there are plenty of potential commercial applications for nuclear weapons and related technology...

Then why have them. The is no reason other than cause I want one and frankly that not good enough a reason for a nuclear weapon. As far as commercial application what are you talking about. Heres a bright I dea instead of using TNT for mining lets drop an atom boom down the whole. That way we can contaminate the area with radiation. There a great idea If there are plenty of commercial applications then what are they.

BTW do some of you even know what a nuke does. Its not like the thousand pounders bomb that got dropped all over Iraq. Nuclear weapons are not "smart bombs" they kill undiscrimantly and whats more they continue to kill even if the nuke has been drop and the fires had subsided. I hope to have a future in the FBI and depending on what task force I get appointed to I plan on making dam sure citizens, terrorist, stuipd people never and I mean never get to even thouch these things

Wait I just came up with a use for nuke as a commerical product. Lets say we want to build a freeway through the Sierra Nevada, but dam it would take along time to build. Why don't we plant nukes in a designated route thought the mountains and blow up the mountians.

Furthermore, I doubt that our founding fathers would have written the 2nd Amendment if they thought people would be able to poses such a weapon. The right to Keep and bear ARMS does not refer to a city killing weapon.

someone said eariler that it would be awfull hard to obtain a nuclear weapon. To those I say "All it takes is one"

Time to adress our President and His control over Nuclear Weapons. Some of you seem to think he is going to be Dropping a couple of these nuclear weapon on your milita base. get real, no US branch of goverment is going to use these things inside for purposes other than testing, and if you believe so I got some beach front property in Arizona I want to sell you for a fair price. Our goverment is not perfect but it sure is the best one around.

Does anyone remeber Japan in WW2 after we dropped the bomb on them they grew a very anti-nuclear weapon attitued. I have been to Japan and the Attitued is still strong. Although they gov there may try and build one anyway the people are very anti-nuke and for a good reason. They have had one dropped in their country and they know exactly what horrors exsist.

I am still wondering if some of you even know what a nuke is


[Edited by CBlackjr on 05-24-2001 at 04:36 PM]

[Oleg Volk]

Can a group have rights than an individual doesn't?

Here's a hypothetical: some companies have more employess than small countries like Andorra or Monaco. Monaco, as a country, can own nukes. Can Microsoft (which has more people?) A corporation is a "legal person" -- does it have more rights than a real person? What about even smaller countries (say, an atoll with a dozen residents and a flag of their own)? They are far from others, are legally a country (and likely one family).

[Battler]

CBlackjr:

Is it me you're calling the lunatic?

I'm seeing some of the same hysteria Sarah Brady would get into over an "Assault Weapon".

No, people, I don't like glowing in the dark any more than the next guy.

I don't know much about fusion - but what happens when people can make their own nukes? What happens when machines that make modern CNC lathes/etc. look primitve can build the devices that build the devices that can build such a weapon?

Totalitarian/draconian measures could stop that - akin to the measures that would make school shootings impossible (a jackboot thru every door).

That is the way out if you don't want to face it intellectually (as the irrational/emotional/people who don't want to think deal with lead-projecting-devices; but on a smaller scale).

Comes down to the fundamental question:

"Is it moral to make another incapable of hurting me?" - gun control answers this. But as some pro-gun people say: But he can still hurt you with his knife/fists/car.

What would it take.

Is there a "right" to "feel safe" and is a government that makes everyone feel safe from eachother more destructive than any nuclear bomb?


Something to think about. . .


Battler.

[CBlackjr]

Maybe battler, I haven't read everyone name but if you fit the above description then maybe your a lunitic.

I don't know much about fusion - but what happens when people can make their own nukes? What happens when machines that make modern CNC lathes/etc. look primitve can build the devices that build the devices that can build such a weapon?

This is pretty .... so I respond to this first. So you want to be able to defend yourself against someone who has a nuke by having your own nuke. Its a good policy for a country v. country but this whole thread is about neighbor v. neighbor so take your head out of your but. Lets say some bad guy lives in a town and drive over to your town and drops of a bag which contains a nuke. Everyone in your town dies as a result. Your are still alive because you where out of town now you drive over to the bad guys town and lay the nuke on his door step and kill him and the thousands of innocent people that live around him. You follow me or did still not understand?

Now for you that want to associate me with Sarah Brady, Rosey, Diane F. I have no agreement with these people at all. If an assult weapon is abused can kill probably an average of 20 people in one use. Big deal that many are killed by doctors and in buses all the time. NOW WHEN A NUKE IS ABUSED THE DEATH TOLL COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 100,000 TO 15,000,000 PEOPLE DEAD, IT NOT A CARTOON WHERE THE JUST GET A BURN AND THE SCARS FALL OF. There comes a point where a line needs to be drawn and this is it.

I read your two quotes and I think they are good quotes until you try and relate it to nuclear weapons. Its this type of extreme wing B.S. that makes lawful gun owners look bad in the eye of the Media. You want to know why there are people so dead set against guns it is because we have people on our side that want such huge amount of firepower that they could single handly wipe out their goverment. No man should have that much power. Thats why there are three branches of goverment here. And that is why it is supposed to be a demcracy. One nuke is too much power for one person or one group to have. although I have included States before I could see how that could be argued reasonably to a point.

[Edited by CBlackjr on 05-25-2001 at 03:45 PM]

[Battler]

Laying it out as 20 lives vs. millions is the only meat in your post - let's keep it civil and intellectual.

That we are not getting nuked by terrorists has nothing to do with the current law (might sound like a cliche if I say criminals don't obey laws ); but with the difficulty of obtaining weapons, which isn't due to laws themselves but the expense of making and maintaining nuclear weapons.

Bioweapons currently are easier to make and that no terrorist has deployed them has nothing to do with laws to the contrary; but that nobody has been inclined to yet. While the laws against bioweapons may feel good, at least the authorities acknowledge that this makes little difference - and are also looking into the only realistic defense - containment and treatment of the damage.

I do not know of a defense against nukes. But I do know that eventually technology will make them easily accessible - this is a sliding scale - currently, govts. can make them, this will get easier. The catastrophic consequences of which you speak will only be prevented by A: Nobody getting it into their heads to nuke a million people, or B: Shielding/containment/response.

The laws on the books against nukes have not prevented one single act of nuclear terrorism - difficulty of making (and from that, obtaining) one has.


No, I do NOT want someone parking near my house with a nuke. Maybe the perp will be scared of a 10 year possessions charge on top of a six-digit multiple-murder?


Battler.

[Scott Conklin]

This is an impossible argument. Seriously, it is. The simple fact is that theoretically every individual should be allowed to own a nuke, or any other weapon. Personally I want to creat an anti-matter device just to say I have one. Screw that wimpy nuke. I'll crack your whole damn planet.

But the fact is felons should be allowed to own firearms once their debt is paid to society...in a perfect world. As a matter of reality we know this is, in large part, impossible since very few felons ever cease to be a felon, no matter how many times they "pay". Likewise look around you. How many people do you know with the intelectual ability and willingness to maintain and safeguard such a deadly thing? I don't think I have that degree of commitment. It's simply too much trouble.

The only answer has to be that theoretically, as a mental exercise and in a perfect enviroment, each of us has the "right". In the real world and considering the level of commitment necessary, as well as the state of the technology, it is simply impractical. In the case of governments the points are somewhat reversed. I don't believe a government has the right or qualification to own them BUT since some governments WILL have them there is little choice than to allow ours to as well. The ability to respond with a cohesive defense demands it if nothing else.

I don't think it's possible to come to any better answers than that.

[ctdonath]

CBlackjr -
We understand your point. Nukes can wipe out whole cities. Yes, that's way the heck beyond a revolver.

Yes, a line needs to be drawn - question is, how?

Understandably, you're looking at the horror of nukes, declaring "enough is enough" and drawing a line...and drawing it rather arbitrarily, which causes a boatload of legal problems. (Hang on...)

I answered this question earlier by taking two fundamental sets of rules for using ANY weapons (minor extrapolation as needed): "Cooper's Four Rules" and "Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy". If someone breaks any of the first set, they are irresponsible and society may lawfully temporarily disarm him as appropriate. If someone satisifes the three conditions of the second set, they are threatening innocents and society may lawfully lock his butt away for a long time. (Hang on...) Once you approach the problem from the view that RKBA is a basic right AND that society may lock away someone who violates those two sets of rules, it becomes apparent that one who possesses a nuke inherently is violating virtually every point of those sets of rules (i.e.: acts irresponsibly by threatening innocent lives), with obvious consequences: you have the right to keep and bear nukes, but since there's no way you can do so responsibly, the rest of us have the right to do everything necessary to disarm you of that nuke (including kill you).

[Dennis]

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Calm yourselves!

Read the comments of those who wrote the Second Amendment.

“the Right to keep and bear Arms” was meant to protect the
individual right to own, carry and use small arms - in the sense of guns, swords, knives, etc.

We’re talking about personal weapons, carried and employed by
individuals - NOT used by “crews” or groups.

The omission of cannon and warships of the time (1700s) in no way
outlaws private ownership of such arms, it only means such
ownership was neither envisioned as a private obligation (as was
membership in the militia) nor prohibited - merely ignored.

Because private ownership of weapons of mass destruction are NOT
included in the concept of small arms, the governments are free to
regulate creation, possession and use of such things as nuclear
weapons, biological and chemical weapons, etc.

If you want to buy a B-52H, feel free to do so. But no nukes, no
classified stellar navigation equipment, no classified active or passive
SAM detection/protection equipment, etc. will be permitted.

Small arms, folks. Guns, swords, knives, and similar individual
weapons.

Okay?

Now let's try to figure out how to restore the natural or God-given Right the Second Amendment was meant to protect.

[Dangus]

Let me try to drill the concept into some heads here with a different approach.

Ideally nobody would own nukes, or bio/chem weapons. We do so as a nation only because it serves the greater good. If we didn't have nukes through the cold war, we faced a very real threat of nuclear attack, but with those nukes, they knew it was suicide to attack us. We still have that threatening power, and it benefits the citizens of this nation. So, as a people, we allow the government to continue owning and distributing nukes as needed to protect us from an evil greater even than it can be. This is vital to our survival as Americans. Take that away and NOBODY should own nukes, except maybe in rare cases for experiments that are necessary to the furtherment of our society. Something that dangerous cannot be taken lightly.

Look at guns. To pretend that legal guns are not used in crime is idiocy. To pretend that normally law abiding citizens do not ever use guns in a crime is idiocy. You KNOW that guns are used in crimes. If there were no benefits to owning guns, then banning them would be a good idea. Instead of pretending there are no negatives to owning weapons, which is idiotic, we must acknowledge that while there may be some downsides, the upsides are more important and outweigh them. With nukes there are no upsides. Someone screws around, someone does something on purpose, it can kill more people in one explosion than Hitler killed with the entire "final solution", that's nothing to be taken lightly. Guns are abused, nukes would be too. Why are there not private and terrorist nukes right now? Fear of retaliation for one thing, fear of getting caught, impracticality of creation. You don't just pick weapons grade plutonium off the ground and put together a nuke, it requires facilities and processes that are not legal to own and almost impossible to conceal. We're talking about a weapon of apocalyptic proportions here, not a mere little cap gun. I think some people here are really failing to understand the enormity of what they are proposing.

Example: Your family has lived in the same rural area around a small town, and there are hundreds of other families like your's. They have lived there for a hundred or more years, and you have a lot of history and a lot of yourself invested in the place. Own day farmer Joe down the road, always an eccentric, puts together a nuke with his life's savings. He thinks it's really cool, brags to everyone about it. Only farmer Joe screws up and detonates it. Oops, town's gone, buildings are gone. All those families are gone. Whole family lines wiped off the face of the earth, and entire community ceases to exist. Not even a 2000lbs iron bomb could easily do that.

Example: Say farmer Joe finds a rare strain of anthrax in his cows, he decides to carefully slaughter the cow and contain a sample of the disease. In the course of playing with it, a contagious version of it mutates into a super strain and kills farmer Joe. Nobody knows about it for a while. His cows wandering in the area pick it up, and spread it, nobody knows still. His cows go to the fences bordering other properties, still nobody knows. Other farmers pick it up, people start to suspect something is going on when everyone starts getting really sick. One guy, who has been unaffected, gets on a plane to get out of the area. He heads to New York City. Uh oh, he's a carrier. People on the plane start getting sick. Initially the food is thought responsible. This guy feels alright though, so he gets off the plane and starts going around New York. Before long millions of people are infected, the population of the Eastern Seaboard is nearly eliminated as the virus spreads and becomes more potent. At this time it's too late for the CDC to do anything to contain it, so it recommends those in unaffected areas quarantine themselves, but it's too late. Eventually in the Southwest, it reaches border crossers and smugglers, and ends up in Mexico, despite their stepping up of border enforcement. It goes across North and South America like wildfire, killing a couple billion people.

THIS is what can happen when some lone idiot is allowed to play with bio/chem weapons. That's all a lot of them really are you know, just diseases that you can get off animals, only bred to be much much worse than usual. The Russians even have a strain of tetnis that is considered to have a kill potential of 50,000 people per ounce. Nasty stuff.

[Battler]

Dangus: Good points.

Dennis: It seems you are perpetuating something that we "gunners" use to deflect the question of "do you think gang-bangers should own rocket bombs!" Try as I might, I could find no reference to "small" arms in the constitution. I could find neither an exception in the 2nd amendment, nor anything in the rest of the constitution that authorizes govt. to regulate weapons.

Go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up arms. Remember, nuclear DisARMament.


People - I'm not saying I want my neighbor to be able to nuke me. In this thread, I have seen folk try to defend RKBA without a principled defense.

Approaches:

- Cutoff point in terms of body count that a lunatic can guarantee before being caught. 20 for an "assault weapon" vs. a million. RKBA can not be defended before an emotional audience in terms of body count. In front of people raised on "it saves one life" saying "20 dead people is tolerable" may itself be used against you. The next time around you're arguing against someone who wants to cut this down to 10 dead people.

- "Don't ban guns because guns are useful". Should they be banned if not useful? Is a fullauto AR15 useful? Is target shooting useful? This cedes the point that govt. should determine "usefulness" and apply force against another (violate property rights) if a piece of his property is not "useful. RKBA placed up against this - loses, as we've seen with "sporting use" etc.

- "Some weapons are useful to defend against tyranny whereas nukes aren't". Err - compare the two - storming the "palace" with your AK brake M4gery is harder than it looks. Whereas he might have better success with the threat of a nuke backing his words. I AM NOT SAYING THIS WITH ANY LESS FEAR OF SOME LOONEY TRYING THIS, AS THE NEXT GUY - just that this argument is bunk.

Dangus: Your Farmer Joe examples were both scary AND realistic (at least in the future). I'll look at the statement you made: "THIS is what can happen when some lone idiot is allowed to play with bio/chem weapons." No, this is what can happen when some lone idiot PLAYS with bio/chem weapons. I suspect he does not care that he's violating the "toxic brew act of 2003" - and any realistic defense against the lone nut of nefarious intentions WILL have to deal with that - and the "toxic brew act of 2003" is merely feel good legislation.



Battler.

[Ed Brunner]

This thread is amusing because with all the fancy footwork it begs the question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
And what makes it even more amusing is the great variety of imaginative interpretations of the Second Amendment.
To rationalize away our constitutionally guaranteed rights because of fear of death is inxcusable. We are all going to die. DID YOU HEAR THAT? We will all die and in most cases we will have little to say about the time or the method. And really, what difference does it make in the end?
I personally believe that my life will be happier and longer if everyone respects my rights.
Shall not be infringed means just what it says.

[USP45]

This is going to sound somewhat wacked, but one thought that has occured to me...

Its not that people should be allowed, or not allowed, to personnally own a 'Nuke'. The problem is, in 30 years, define for me what a 'Nuke' is. Granted today the idea of a personnal 'Nuke' is pretty obtuse, but in the future, will there be a small arm which uses nuclear technology, that will fall under the description of a 'Nuke' that will be banned from personnal ownership by a 2001 piece of legislation?

Ok, sorry, i've been sniffing solvents all morning

BTW... Keep in mind that the Hard Rock Cafe has already banned the possession of Nuclear Weapons on their property, world wide.

~USP

[TheBluesMan]

This really is becoming pointless. The "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" analogy is very appropriate in this case.

We're losing our rights at an incredible rate, and this isn't doing anything to help get them back. We are fighting for our lives while beating each other up over trivialities.