The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.

[Into the Night]

Actually I do not believe that it is the commerce clause.
It was a law passed in 1946.
42 us code 2122.

Really I think it is an issue getting nuclear material as well.

Anyone can get nuclear material. Uranium mines are largely privately owned. I can order it right now from Amazon.

Purifying the material on your own is another story. That's an expensive and dangerous process. There comes a point where you would be assaulting your neighbors (with radioactivity) rather than defending them, simply by having the purified material on your premises.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand the words in each and every one of our amendments; express declarations, not right wing inferences.

You have demonstrated otherwise.

Now you turn to bigotry to make your case???

You seem to deny that Man has inherent rights regardless of any document or government. One such right is self defense. No document or government grants this right.

 

[Into the Night]

It specifically enumerates our Civil Rights in our Republic.

Then you understand nothing of the Constitution or it's history. The 9th amendment disagrees with you.

The Framers did not put an enumerated list of rights for the people in the Constitution. They knew such a list would easily leave something out. Indeed, they added the 9th and 10th amendments (part of the Bill of Rights, which you claim to understand), to clarify this very point.

 

[danielpalos]

You have demonstrated otherwise.

Now you turn to bigotry to make your case???

You seem to deny that Man has inherent rights regardless of any document or government. One such right is self defense. No document or government grants this right.

Yet, all States recognize the concept and codify the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Then you understand nothing of the Constitution or it's history. The 9th amendment disagrees with you.

The Framers did not put an enumerated list of rights for the people in the Constitution. They knew such a list would easily leave something out. Indeed, they added the 9th and 10th amendments (part of the Bill of Rights, which you claim to understand), to clarify this very point.

Express enumerations are Code law not Common law.

 

[vegas giants]

You have demonstrated otherwise.

Now you turn to bigotry to make your case???

You seem to deny that Man has inherent rights regardless of any document or government. One such right is self defense. No document or government grants this right.

Inherent rights do not exist except in your beliefs

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Quite wrong. You do not have to wait for the police or any other organization to defend yourself.

With a nuke? Yes, I’m afraid you will.

First, a nuclear bomb is not a personal weapon.

A personal weapon is a weapon that is issued to an individual member of a military or paramilitary unit, e.g. to individual soldiers.

It not a practical weapon unless you are defending whole populations with it.

I didn’t ask for a lecture in practicality. I asked whether you would mind living next to a Homer Simpson with a nuke.

Second, when the nation was formed and the Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution, there were machine guns available. So were cannons. A musket was not the only weapon available. Besides...have you seen the damage a musket can do?

You’re getting warmer. The ‘Arms’ they mentioned in the Second did indeed include cannon, ships and all kinds of stuff. For a Militia. Not for the non-military anti-war hippy, Homer Simpson.

Nothing has changed. You have the right to defend yourself. You may use any weapon to do so.

Nope – you may not. You neighbors and indeed your city will not let you have a nuke.

If my neighbor could afford one, and if he was using it to defend himself, then yes...it would be ok.

And there you have it folks. The gun nuts in this thread refused to answer whether they would be okay with their neighbors having nukes, but ‘Into the night’ (ITN) has admitted that yes, he would be okay with this. The term ‘gun nuts’ exists for a very good reason. We’re not dealing with rational people; we’re dealing with lunatics. Now you should understand why gun nuts get so emotional about the Second. They are true fanatics.

How can you argue about grammar, commas, capitals or meanings of sentences with true fanatics who believe it’s Homer Simpson’s right to own a nuke?

 

[Into the Night]

It is sad that people figure their only rights come from a government or from a piece of paper that defines a government.

It also sad to see people so illiterate in history as to not even know of the many privately own cannons people had (and still have!), or privately owned ships (yes..ARMED ships), etc. and how many ships are privately owned today (yes...ARMED ships).

YOU brought up the nuke, dude. I said was not a practical weapon. You DID bring up the practically of a weapon, by bringing up such an impractical weapon in the first place.

The first to lose their freedoms are those willing to give it away.

 

[danielpalos]

It is sad that people figure their only rights come from a government or from a piece of paper that defines a government.

It also sad to see people so illiterate in history as to not even know of the many privately own cannons people had (and still have!), or privately owned ships (yes..ARMED ships), etc. and how many ships are privately owned today (yes...ARMED ships).

YOU brought up the nuke, dude. I said was not a practical weapon. You DID bring up the practically of a weapon, by bringing up such an impractical weapon in the first place.

The first to lose their freedoms are those willing to give it away.

defense of self and property is already covered.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

YOU brought up the nuke, dude.

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

 

[Rucker61]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

No to all of those - are nukes "in common use for lawful purposes"?

 

[Tennyson]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

I never stated that.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

I never stated that.

Nor have you denied believing it. You came within a hair’s breadth of saying it, and by refusing to answer key questions, made it pretty obvious you support the idea. Like many gun nuts before you, you know it is controversial, so you don’t say the actual words, but you support it. Consider the following:

The meaning of the Second Amendment in concise language that mirrors the Framers’ intent, the state’s ratifying conventions, and the public understanding of the amendment in 1791 would read as follows:

Individuals have a God-given, unalienable right to self-defense by any manner they choose based on the state of nature…​

A nuclear weapon has only been used once in the history of mankind and that would exempt it from being considered a self-defense property of the state of nature.

Since you said that a nuclear weapon would not be considered a self-defense property of the state of nature if it had not been used more than once, and I showed you in post #829 that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear weapons, according to your own logic they qualify as a self-defense property of the state of nature. Aside from stopping the war with Japan dead in its tracks, nukes also deterred other likely wars. There has never been a better example of self-defense, and since nuclear energy is the source of all nature on Earth, never a more natural one.

When pressed to answer whether you would mind living next to Homer with a nuke, you evaded the question, and when pressed again, refused to answer. That would indicate strongly that you agree with ITN, and would support Homer in owning his own nuke.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

No to all of those - are nukes "in common use for lawful purposes"?

I haven't time to scurry around looking for your references. Use the quote function.

 

[Rucker61]

I haven't time to scurry around looking for your references. Use the quote function.

It was your own post abut nukes. How many of those do you have in this thread? There's also a little carat by a quoted post that takes you instantly back to the previous post with little scurrying required.

 

[Tennyson]

Nor have you denied believing it. You came within a hair’s breadth of saying it, and by refusing to answer key questions, made it pretty obvious you support the idea. Like many gun nuts before you, you know it is controversial, so you don’t say the actual words, but you support it. Consider the following:


Since you said that a nuclear weapon would not be considered a self-defense property of the state of nature if it had not been used more than once, and I showed you in post #829 that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear weapons, according to your own logic they qualify as a self-defense property of the state of nature. Aside from stopping the war with Japan dead in its tracks, nukes also deterred other likely wars. There has never been a better example of self-defense, and since nuclear energy is the source of all nature on Earth, never a more natural one.

When pressed to answer whether you would mind living next to Homer with a nuke, you evaded the question, and when pressed again, refused to answer. That would indicate strongly that you agree with ITN, and would support Homer in owning his own nuke.

There is not way to construe this:

Originally Posted by Tennyson
A nuclear weapon has only been used once in the history of mankind and that would exempt it from being considered a self-defense property of the state of nature.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Once again, no answers from the gun nuts.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

Actually, a nuke is NOT the most powerful weapon we know.

A weapon's power is useful only to consider as a means of accomplishing your end need for using the weapon.

If an armed intruder enters a house, having a nuke isn't going to help you. While it would kill the burglar, it would also destroy the house and everything in it, the neighborhood, the town, etc. What have you gained by using a nuke?

In the same scenario, a shotgun or a pistol is far more effective. It is faster responding than the police (which can take 20 minutes or more to get there!), and the police would use the same gun you do if they have to (typically a 9mm pistol like a Glock).

The argument of extremes is a fallacy. I didn't bring up the nuke. There is no need to. It's not a practical weapon, it's expensive, and it requires special handling.

That said, there is nothing in the law preventing someone from owning a nuke, at least constitutionally speaking. No State constitution nor the Federal constitution describe what kind of 'arm' is 'legal'. You have the right to defend yourself. The State also has the right to defend itself. The Federal government also has the right to defend itself.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Actually, a nuke is NOT the most powerful weapon we know.

A weapon's power is useful only to consider as a means of accomplishing your end need for using the weapon.

If an armed intruder enters a house, having a nuke isn't going to help you. While it would kill the burglar, it would also destroy the house and everything in it, the neighborhood, the town, etc. What have you gained by using a nuke?

In the same scenario, a shotgun or a pistol is far more effective. It is faster responding than the police (which can take 20 minutes or more to get there!), and the police would use the same gun you do if they have to (typically a 9mm pistol like a Glock).

The argument of extremes is a fallacy. I didn't bring up the nuke. There is no need to. It's not a practical weapon, it's expensive, and it requires special handling.

That said, there is nothing in the law preventing someone from owning a nuke, at least constitutionally speaking. No State constitution nor the Federal constitution describe what kind of 'arm' is 'legal'. You have the right to defend yourself. The State also has the right to defend itself. The Federal government also has the right to defend itself.

Thanks for your non-answers and guff.

 

[Tennyson]

Once again, no answers from the gun nuts.

The two statements are not the same, have different meanings, and different intents.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

The two statements are not the same, have different meanings, and different intents.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

The questions are irrelevant. First, no such bombs exist, second, such bombs are obviously useless for defense, since it would destroy the defender as well as the attacker.

Extreme arguments are a fallacy.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Actually you and Tennyson brought up the nuke when you said it was okay for any individual to defend themselves with any weapon they liked. That inevitably makes any logical person question you about nukes – which are the most powerful weapon we know.

Now that you have admitted you would be fine with your neighbor in the burbs owning a nuke, please answer the following:

A) Do you agree that no city on earth would allow you to own a nuke?

B) Why?

C) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘W’ that could destroy the Earth, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

D) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘X’ that could destroy the Solar System, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

E) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Y’ that could destroy the Galaxy, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

F) If there was a bigger bomb called ‘Z’ that could destroy the Universe, would you be okay with your neighbor owning one?

Please answer these with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, and elaborate if you like.

The questions are irrelevant.

The fact that you refuse to answer them reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses you. A normal person would answer ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” We know your refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts you way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.

 

[danielpalos]

Muster the militia and bring your Arms!

 

[Wan]

The fact that you refuse to answer them reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses you. A normal person would answer ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” We know your refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts you way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.

But he already explained why. The kind of bomb you are imagining, alone with nukes, would destroy the defender as well, so they are not truly good for defense.