Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

[Goshin]

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.

 

[Goshin]

After some consideration, I have decided to un-stick and open this thread. While I personally consider the above assertions to be factual and obvious, it is clear there is some debate on the premise of it. As such, it is probably not appropriate for a sticky.

So I am re-opening the thread as a normal debate thread accordingly.

 

[TurtleDude]

After some consideration, I have decided to un-stick and open this thread. While I personally consider the above assertions to be factual and obvious, it is clear there is some debate on the premise of it. As such, it is probably not appropriate for a sticky.

So I am re-opening the thread as a normal debate thread accordingly.

there is really nothing to debate in your opening thread

 

[Gaius46]

I take a different position. Since arms are defined as personal weapons nukes, chemical weapons, fighter jets etc. don't fall under the purview of the 2A and the analysis stops there. There not need for any level of scrutiny because we aren't limiting a right as we don't have an individual right to own those weapons in the first place.

 

[Lursa]

there is really nothing to debate in your opening thread

But it's not necessarily the only perspective on it.

 

[Lursa]

In agreement with the OP, but a different perspective:

The 2A is indeed about being prepared to fight govt tyranny, and personal arms need to be comparable to those of the govt. But that does not necessarily include "weapons of war" such as tanks, bombs, etc.

Here's what I've written on this in the past and posted it recently in one of the mass shooting threads, this is why it's important for citizens to retain personal firearms of all sorts in the event of confronting tyranny:

"Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US in an active violent revolution. Firearms are not the primary weapons considered. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*


Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with replacing that statement with 'nukes' instead of 'tanks.'


Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons."

 

[TurtleDude]

I take a different position. Since arms are defined as personal weapons nukes, chemical weapons, fighter jets etc. don't fall under the purview of the 2A and the analysis stops there. There not need for any level of scrutiny because we aren't limiting a right as we don't have an individual right to own those weapons in the first place.

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

 

[Goshin]

But it's not necessarily the only perspective on it.

Exactly, which is why it wasn't appropriate as a "sticky".

 

[TurtleDude]

But it's not necessarily the only perspective on it.

what exactly in his OP is debatable?

 

[Goshin]

what exactly in his OP is debatable?

It's factual, but the facts are presented in support of a premise, which is "nukes not a 2A issue". That premise, while it seems painfully obvious to me (and to you) is one that some disagree with or look at differently. As such, it is arguably an expression of opinion, which is not suitable for a "sticky thread".


Even if it is a stupid argument, people are free to make stupid arguments.

 

[Gaius46]

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

While I completely forgot about the tenth (hence my comment about us never having had a right to own nukes) I think Goshin was arguing strictly from a 2A standpoint.

Theoretically then how does restricting my right to own a nuke work under the tenth? Is that a matter of state regulation? But how does that work since I'm guessing the Feds don't recognize that the states have the right to own their own nukes. Or do things like F16s and submarines somehow get subsumed under Congress power to raise armies?

 

[Lursa]

what exactly in his OP is debatable?

The premise that just because an individual couldnt (but IMO realistically, could) actually store/deploy certain weapons, that the 2A wouldnt apply to them.

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.

Unfortunately, practically useful or not for individuals, there could be, and is, trafficking in such weapons by individuals.

IMO it's just one particular point (out of the entire OP) that I think was not recognized in the 2A.

 

[TurtleDude]

The premise that just because an individual couldnt (but IMO realistically, could) actually store/deploy certain weapons, that the 2A wouldnt apply to them.



Unfortunately, practically useful or not for individuals, there could be, and is, trafficking in such weapons by individuals.

IMO it's just not a particular point (out of the entire OP) that I think was not recognized in the 2A.

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?

 

[Lursa]

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?

And here we are....debating it.

As I wrote, I do not believe that the premise I singled out in my response was something the FFs used in their determination to articulate and recognize our 2A rights. Cannon, for example are not included IMO.

 

[TurtleDude]

And here we are....debating it.

As I wrote, I do not believe that the premise I singled out in my response was something the FFs used in their determination to articulate and recognize our 2A rights. Cannon, for example are not included IMO.

simple question-what was the natural right the founders wanted to recognize with the second amendment

 

[Lursa]

simple question-what was the natural right the founders wanted to recognize with the second amendment

I do not believe in natural rights and thus cannot debate that point.

I believe that all rights are a man-made concept, conceived, enumerated, protected, and enforced by man.

(The fact that the FFs did believe so does not change my position nor the reasons in the response I gave.)

 

[TurtleDude]

I do not believe in natural rights and thus cannot debate that point.

I believe that all rights are a man-made concept, conceived, enumerated, protected, and enforced by man.

(The fact that the FFs did believe so does not change my position nor the reasons in the response I gave.)

I don't care if you believe in God or not or in natural rights. the issue is what natural right did the founders try to guarantee with the second amendment

 

[Lursa]

simple question-what was the natural right the founders wanted to recognize with the second amendment

No idea. The primary reason for the 2A was to enable the population to confront and prevent tyranny from the govt. I am not aware of any 'natural right' that the FFs related to the 2A. Havent ever seen that from them.

I realize that many people have presumed a 'right to self-defense' inherent in the 2A but I have see the arguments and disagree.

 

[TurtleDude]

No idea. The primary reason for the 2A was to enable the population to confront and prevent tyranny from the govt. I am not aware of any 'natural right' that the FFs related to the 2A. Havent ever seen that from them.

I realize that many people have presumed a 'right to self-defense' inherent in the 2A but I have see the arguments and disagree.

what arguments. every legal scholar at the time, the founders and then the supreme court all agreed that the second amendment didn't -in the minds of those who authored it-didn't CREATE A RIGHT BUT merely guaranteed one the founders believed free citizens had from the start of time.

and the reason why I mention this is because those of us who understand what the founders intended, also understand why nukes or bombs or weapons designed to destroy areas rather than target individual attackers were not the sort of arms those who were trying to guarantee that natural right of self defense.

nothing more, nothing less

 

[Lursa]

what arguments. every legal scholar at the time, the founders and then the supreme court all agreed that the second amendment didn't -in the minds of those who authored it-didn't CREATE A RIGHT BUT merely guaranteed one the founders believed free citizens had from the start of time.

and the reason why I mention this is because those of us who understand what the founders intended, also understand why nukes or bombs or weapons designed to destroy areas rather than target individual attackers were not the sort of arms those who were trying to guarantee that natural right of self defense.

nothing more, nothing less

So you tell me, which 'natural right' did the FFs recognize in the 2A? Which one?

(And there is by no means consensus that it was self-defense.)

 

[TurtleDude]

So you tell me, which 'natural right' did the FFs recognize in the 2A? Which one?

(And there is by no means consensus that it was self-defense.)

so tell me what is the OTHER natural right that you claim is the competing choice?

 

[Lursa]

so tell me what is the OTHER natural right that you claim is the competing choice?

Freedom. Liberty.

 

[ecofarm]

Freedom. Liberty.

Everything is that, expression, self defense even life. But to what end? Self defense.

 

[Lursa]

Everything is that, expression, self defense even life. But to what end? Self defense.

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.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't care if you believe in God or not or in natural rights. the issue is what natural right did the founders try to guarantee with the second amendment

No idea. The primary reason for the 2A was to enable the population to confront and prevent tyranny from the govt. I am not aware of any 'natural right' that the FFs related to the 2A. Havent ever seen that from them.

I realize that many people have presumed a 'right to self-defense' inherent in the 2A but I have see the arguments and disagree.

You guys are actually about 99% in agreement on this. Don't lose the forest for the branches of one tree.