• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.


A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.

Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).


More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.

Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.

Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.

Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.

Plus to add, no one person has complete control over a nuke. Even the president himself has certain protocal and people to launch one. I advocate that the second amendment covers anything the average soldier has access to without special security clearance.
 
I am not interested in this conversation. Since I believe the 2A is to protect citizens from tyranny,
That's not self defense?

and it's clear *to me* in the amendment itself, I have no trouble with a premise of liberty.

The premise of liberty satisfies everything in the Constitution. One should, nonetheless, look deeper. There are countless philosophical, historical and sociological works on the subject.

There are primarily three socially natural rights, as established by The Enlightenment, The Constitution and sociology: life, expression and self defense. These are agreements made by all groups of free (equal before the law) and sane people. Since the agreements are universal in time and place, they are deemed socially natural. Further, the agreements are made in the interest of personal and species survival.

People have sacrificed personal safety (giving up a right to self-defense) for liberty (for themselves, for others) all thru history, so I have no problem seeing a clear distinction.

No right is absolute, not even liberty; they must be weighed with each other when there's a conflict.


Said my piece. If you'd like, last word on the subject for now is yours.
 
its undebatable that the second amendment was intended by the founders not to CREATE right but merely to recognize a right that the founders believed free citizens had since the dawn of time. What is the right you think the second amendment sought to guarantee-a natural right that the founders believed man was endowed with by the creator?

If you think rights like gun ownership come from the creator and not government, then why don't we remove it from the document of the supreme law of the land, take away the legal protection of the government from it, and see how long it will last?

In nature, left completely free and without government intervention, you are not even guaranteed the right to breathe.
 
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage.

The same argument could be made for semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks on them. The Las Vegas shooter proved that. Nearly 60 dead and 600 injured in the space of a few minutes. Very few weapons can do that kind of mass casualty damage in such a short period of time.
 
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage.

The SALT treaties with the Soviet Union in the 1970s were an acronym for "Strategic ARMS Limitation Talks". They were about limiting nuclear arms.

Nuclear arms are a type of arms. You are trying to twist the meaning of the word. The found fathers just said arms. If you don't want to limit what they WOULD have meant if they knew about nuclear weapons and machine guns, then you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both stay, or it's OK to try to draw the line somewhere sane.
 
Last edited:
Even Justice Scalia realized there have to be some sane limits to what kind of arms you can carry, and he admitted that the right to arms is not, and cannot be, unlimited.

In his opinion in the Heller case,

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

So this is not about nuclear arms vs. whatever type of arm a soldier can carry. It's saying that the 2nd amendment rights are not absolute, or natural. We can debate where a line can be drawn. THAT a line has to be drawn somewhere is not debated by even Scalia.
 
I am not interested in this conversation. Since I believe the 2A is to protect citizens from tyranny, and it's clear *to me* in the amendment itself, I have no trouble with a premise of liberty.

Think about what a deterrent to potential government tyranny it would be if every American had a nuclear-tipped ICBM with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed on it. If government does decide to get tyrannical on you, your little shotguns and semiautomatics are not going to do diddly. I am not sure why patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like the folks here are trying to argue against such a potent deterrent.
 
Plus to add, no one person has complete control over a nuke. Even the president himself has certain protocal and people to launch one. I advocate that the second amendment covers anything the average soldier has access to without special security clearance.

Sounds to me then like government already has us on that slippery slope to tyranny with such infringements on our right to arms.
 
Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.


A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.

Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).


More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.

Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.

Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.

Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.

The 2nd was meant as a replacement for a standing army and since we have that army now it is really no longer valid.
 
well I hate to play devil's advocate but unless the federal government has a proper power to ban you from owning such things, we are left with a tenth amendment issue, even though I agree that the second amendment (which was designed, first and foremost, to guarantee the individual right of self defense) does not involve indiscriminate strategic weapons or weapons designed to destroy cities, fortresses, ships, planes or something bigger than several attacking individuals

The Las Vegas shooter shot up over 600 people in the space of a few minutes. Not sure why this is not considered "indiscriminate" like those other weapons you list.
 
The 2nd was meant as a replacement for a standing army and since we have that army now it is really no longer valid.


Supreme Court and half the country disagrees.
 
I advocate that the second amendment covers anything the average soldier has access to without special security clearance.

Soldiers have grenade launchers and full auto machine guns. Did Reagan infringe on those rights by signing the Firearms Owners' Protection Act?
 
there is really nothing to debate in your opening thread

Ridiculous.

Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.


A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.

Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).

Literally all of that is irrelevant. Your "cannot be used for precision targeting," requirement would already push automatic weapons off of the second amendment. For automatic firearms, collateral damage is a feature rather than a bug.

More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.

Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.

Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.

Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.

And this portion effectively acknowledges that gun control is required to accommodate SCS. Basically, there is nothing specific in here actually explaining why nukes are included but grenade launchers or machine guns are not.

Furthermore, "a nuclear armed society is a polite society," "good guy with a nuke," blah blah. This argument really just debunks a whole bunch of miserable anti gun control arguments and doesn't outline a precise line for where restrictions should stop.
 
Supreme Court and half the country disagrees.

I don't care about half the country. I have realized we live in a nation of idiots. More Americans believe in Bigfoot sightings, UFO abductions and séances with the dead than in basic evolutionary biology and climate change science. You can't expect too much from such an ignorant, backward populace. That's why they are so easily manipulable by everyone from NRA gun manufacturers and the Koch brothers to Vladimir Putin.

And you are wrong about the supreme court. I will let Justice Scalia explain why in his opinion on Heller:

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”
 
Last edited:
I don't care about half the country. I have realized we live in a nation of idiots. More Americans believe in Bigfoot sightings, UFO abductions and séances with the dead than in basic evolutionary biology and climate change science. You can't expect too much from such an ignorant, backward populace. That's why they are so easily manipulable by everyone from NRA gun manufacturers and the Koch brothers to Vladimir Putin.

And you are wrong about the supreme court. I will let Justice Scalia explain why in his opinion on Heller:

What exactly does this empower the government to ban?
 
Supreme Court and half the country disagrees.

It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.
 
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.

When did SCOTUS make this decision?
 
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.

Interesting. When did they vote on that? Maybe you have mistaken hyperbole for truth.
 
Think about what a deterrent to potential government tyranny it would be if every American had a nuclear-tipped ICBM with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed on it. If government does decide to get tyrannical on you, your little shotguns and semiautomatics are not going to do diddly. I am not sure why patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like the folks here are trying to argue against such a potent deterrent.

Why would Americans need weapons so dangerous to themselves, heavy, impossible to manage, radioactive and capable of irradiating vast expanses of our country? When we have many other means of striking back and going on the offensive?

Not too familiar with that subject eh?
 
Last edited:
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.

Does the govt restrict the manufacture of other products, in terms of number produced?
 
Think about what a deterrent to potential government tyranny it would be if every American had a nuclear-tipped ICBM with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed on it. If government does decide to get tyrannical on you, your little shotguns and semiautomatics are not going to do diddly. I am not sure why patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like the folks here are trying to argue against such a potent deterrent.

Why would Americans need weapons so dangerous to themselves, heavy, impossible to manage, radioactive and capable of irradiating vast expanses of our country? When we have many other means of striking back and going on the offensive?

Not too familiar with that subject eh?
.....
 
Ridiculous.



Literally all of that is irrelevant. Your "cannot be used for precision targeting," requirement would already push automatic weapons off of the second amendment. For automatic firearms, collateral damage is a feature rather than a bug.



And this portion effectively acknowledges that gun control is required to accommodate SCS. Basically, there is nothing specific in here actually explaining why nukes are included but grenade launchers or machine guns are not.

Furthermore, "a nuclear armed society is a polite society," "good guy with a nuke," blah blah. This argument really just debunks a whole bunch of miserable anti gun control arguments and doesn't outline a precise line for where restrictions should stop.

you really shouldn't debate either me or Goshin on gun issues that is one of the most stupid replies I have seen
 
The 2nd was meant as a replacement for a standing army and since we have that army now it is really no longer valid.

that's just moronic. as usual when gun banners try to change what the second amendment says in order to allow their anti gun nonsense. Tell us what was the underlying natural right the second was supposed to recognize? a right that PRE EXISTS the Constitution and the government?
 
you really shouldn't debate either me or Goshin on gun issues that is one of the most stupid replies I have seen

You must not have seen your own post. It didn't rebut anything in any capacity.
 
What exactly does this empower the government to ban?

Scalia also understood that if the supreme court properly held that the commerce clause was never intended to allow the nonsense that FDR said it did, and struck down the bogus federal gun control laws, then the Court would have to strike down lots of laws that American Sheeple have become dependent on that were based on the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause

like Social Security, Title VII, IX, Medicaid etc
 
Back
Top Bottom