Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

[CLAX1911]

So why be content with only guns? You can do much better, you know.

Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else just ammunition in a firearm point it at whatever you want to shoot and pull the trigger. And safety. Though gun accidents happen they are very rare and it's simply being in a room with you isn't going to cause you to become irradiated. You can simply lock it in the safe take the ammo out of it and it's perfectly safe you don't have to build a shielded bunker to contain it.

No. But any infringement is a first step on that slippery slope to Obama coming over and personally taking away your hunting rifle, isn't it?

you must first establish that not allowing people to own nuclear weapons is an infringement on the Second Amendment for that argument to work.

It may start with nukes, but where will it end? Once you concede that it's OK to regulate or restrict SOME things, you're done with your freedom. Don't give them an inch.

See above.

I am not sure what you mean by "free". If I am not free to own any weapon of my choice, how is it free?

this is not clever. I meant a free state that is a phrase or a combination of words that if you take one out of the context it will change the meaning. You will first have to establish by the 2nd Amendment that you were ever free to own a nuclear weapon.

Forget nukes. You know there are lots of other cool weapons that you and I are not free to own, right?

Will they potentially give you the power to become a supreme ruler while holding a large chunk of our nation hostage? Search ability would infringe on other people's rights

 

[ataraxia]

Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else just ammunition in a firearm point it at whatever you want to shoot and pull the trigger. And safety. Though gun accidents happen they are very rare and it's simply being in a room with you isn't going to cause you to become irradiated. You can simply lock it in the safe take the ammo out of it and it's perfectly safe you don't have to build a shielded bunker to contain it.

None of those is a reason to make laws banning other arms.

you must first establish that not allowing people to own nuclear weapons is an infringement on the Second Amendment for that argument to work.

Nope. You are the one arguing for an infringement on the right to a particular type of arms. That's not in the Constitution. So the burden is on you to show why that's necessary or even Constitutional. And not just for nukes, but for everything besides what's currently allowed, which is a pretty big list. How are you OK with all these restrictions?

this is not clever. I meant a free state that is a phrase or a combination of words that if you take one out of the context it will change the meaning. You will first have to establish by the 2nd Amendment that you were ever free to own a nuclear weapon.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Any kind of arms. Period. If you think somehow that means the right to nuclear arms can be infringed, it's up to you to show how you came to that conclusion. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.

Will they potentially give you the power to become a supreme ruler while holding a large chunk of our nation hostage?

That only what happens when you make them illegal: only the bad guys will have access to them. But leave them free, and the good guys with a nuke are going to make a formidable barrier against anyone taking any chunk of our nation hostage. After all, nukes don't kill people. People kill people. Right?

 

[CLAX1911]

None of those is a reason to make laws banning other arms.

I'm sorry you asked me, "why be content with only guns?" You did not ask me why ban other forms of weaponry.

Nope.

Yes.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Any kind of arms. Period.

I know it says more than that.

That only what happens when you make them illegal: only the bad guys will have access to them. But leave them free, and the good guys with a nuke are going to make a formidable barrier against anyone taking any chunk of our nation hostage. After all, nukes don't kill people. People kill people. Right?

okay to follow your rabbit hole, how would a good guy with a new versus a bad guy with a nuke cancel each other out?

 

[ataraxia]

I'm sorry you asked me, "why be content with only guns?" You did not ask me why ban other forms of weaponry.

OK. Now I have. So what's the answer?

[/QUOTE]

The 2nd Amendment says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Any kind of arms. Period.

I know it says more than that.

Something about a militia. How does that help you? Here is the National Guard militia:



So anything wrong with one of those on my driveway? It would be a great tyrannical government deterrent, seems to me.

okay to follow your rabbit hole, how would a good guy with a new versus a bad guy with a nuke cancel each other out?

The same way a good country with a nuke vs a bad country with a nuke cancel each other out. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[CLAX1911]

OK. Now I have. So what's the answer?

answer to what?

 

[ataraxia]

answer to what?

This question: why is it OK to ban arms other than guns?

 

[CLAX1911]

This question: why is it OK to ban arms other than guns?

Already explained. I'm not doing it again. If you want to say that I didn't or that it was unsatisfactory, be my guest. I offered my explanation. If it isn't good enough for you or you are too lazy to go back and read it, that's a you problem.

 

[ataraxia]

Already explained. I'm not doing it again. If you want to say that I didn't or that it was unsatisfactory, be my guest. I offered my explanation. If it isn't good enough for you or you are too lazy to go back and read it, that's a you problem.

Here are your answers. Let's go over them:

Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else

What does that have anything to do with anything? Especially Constitution law? Does it say you are allowed only own cheap and simple arms?

Stop making things up for the Constitution. Either you are going to interpret it literally and in a fundamentalist manner, or you are not. You can't cherry pick. It's not a cafeteria.

 

[CLAX1911]

Here are your answers. Let's go over them:

that wasn't all of them try again.

What does that have anything to do with anything? Especially Constitution law? Does it say you are allowed only own cheap and simple arms?

I already answered this it's in a different post you responded to it if you couldn't be bothered to read it I understand it the first time I'm not doing it again.

Stop making things up for the Constitution. Either you are going to interpret it literally and in a fundamentalist manner, or you are not. You can't cherry pick. It's not a cafeteria.

Stop being lazy if you want the answers I already gave them to you I'm not doing it again you are too lazy to address them when I made them or you didn't comprehend them I don't know.

Again that's a you problem.

 

[ataraxia]

that wasn't all of them try again.



I already answered this it's in a different post you responded to it if you couldn't be bothered to read it I understand it the first time I'm not doing it again.


Stop being lazy if you want the answers I already gave them to you I'm not doing it again you are too lazy to address them when I made them or you didn't comprehend them I don't know.

Again that's a you problem.

OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!

 

[CLAX1911]

OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!

Than we are done here right?

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah, sure. Sounds like you are crying uncle. I'll let you go.

 

[TurtleDude]

OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!

hand held machine guns should be protected under

1) the actual language of the second amendment
2) the tenth and ninth amendments
3) the Miller decision
4) the Heller decision

 

[Rucker61]

OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!

No, that just shows that Democrats come up with stupid crazy laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, that just shows that Democrats come up with stupid crazy laws.

nothing proves my claim (that the anti gun movement is not about crime control but harassing honest gun owners) better than the Hughes Amendment

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, sure. Sounds like you are crying uncle. I'll let you go.

You asked a retarded question I answered it you asked another retarded question I answered it then you ask the first retarded question again and I referred you to the first answer.

You can say I'm crying Uncle all you want if it makes you feel like you save face. It doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Lursa]

**Since I doubt the OP will actually read and consider this, I'm just going to cut and paste it from elsewhere.** However I am happy to respond to relevant, civil questions or argument.

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.

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 people's 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."

 

[Marco Montana]

Weapons of Mass Destruction are not 2nd Amendment. Neither are Agent Orange, Risen, Anthrax.....................