nuclear bomb versus individual weapons


September 13, 2004, 02:38 AM
i'm having an agonizing discussion with an anti who keeps relying on my arguement that since the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the same weapons available to the military to assume that i think it's okay for my neighbor to own a nuclear bomb.

how on earth do you knock sense into a person who says this?

If you enjoyed reading about "nuclear bomb versus individual weapons" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 13, 2004, 03:00 AM
Nuclear weapons are explosives, not firearms. Also, many of the components required for construction of a nuclear weapon are hazardous materials. (Plutonium, Uranium, tritium, etc) The Second Amendment doesn't really cover explosives. Nukes can be used as weapons, of course, but they are not firearms.

If you want to freak the anti out, meantion casually that some civilians do have nukes. Civilian corporations, such as BWXT Pantex, build and assemble nuclear weapons for the US military. Obviously they do not have operational control of the nuclear weapons, but they physically do possess the nukes they build.

Chemical and biological weapons are also often used in the civilian world. Modified, of course, for civilian application. The difference between nerve gas and insect spray is very minimal. Vaccines are simply dead or severely weakened biological weapons. And for some odd reason, some people pay to have biochemical weapons injected into their face for cosmetic purposes. (Botox is simply chemical weapon botulinum toxin A diluted with saline, which is made from the biological weapon grade bactera for botulism.)

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

September 13, 2004, 03:08 AM
They meant the same small arms that an infantryman would carry. I.E. Rifles and pistols.

September 13, 2004, 08:52 AM
They meant the same small arms that an infantryman would carry. I.E. Rifles and pistols.

They meant warships and cannon, too.

September 13, 2004, 09:06 AM
My 2-cents

When having that argument with an anti, I point out that possession of a nuke, piles of explosives, anti-aircraft missles or such would constitute the preparation for war against the state and be illegal for that reason.

Thus, no need for any new anti-gun/anti-2nd amendment law to cover the scenario.

September 13, 2004, 11:24 AM
I always wanted my very own destroyer --- let's see - favorite: Fletcher Class five gunner; took a beating and kept on ticking - next: my old (defunct early due to fire) USS Conyngham DDG-17.

Oh well... that was another life.

Looking for a 2000 + F-150 - probably be better for me anyway.



September 13, 2004, 11:51 AM
IMHO you are having a battle of wits with an unarmed person. The anti is basing everything they say on emotion rather than objectivity. Do yourself a favor, avoid the headache and don't waste your time.
THe 2nd Amendment covers ALL small arms that a modern infantry platoon would be armed with. Due to historical precedence, I would even argue that it also includes artillery pieces. Theses items by and of themselves are harmless to others. Nukes OTOH can be harmful to others just sitting there leaking radiation.
Anyone who uses the nuke/2A arguement is intellectually bankrupt.:mad:

Bad Words
September 13, 2004, 12:09 PM
As silly as this argument may be, how foolish would I be if I could not logically debate such nonsense? Here is my attempt:

Rights are derived from equality, freedom, responsibility, and property. For example you have the right to defend YOUR body with YOUR gun so long as you don't violate the rights of others by harming them or their freedom in some way, and you are responsible enough to own a gun. By responsibility I mean if you don't grasp the concept of death because you're incompetent or too young, you probably shouldn't have a gun. Or if you have the tendency to rob people every time you hold a gun, you don't have the responsibility (not to mention this is also a violation of their rights).

Simply possessing a nuclear weapon does no one any harm. However, a nuclear weapon has exactly two uses - to destroy a large area, or to be something cool to keep in your garage and show your friends. This makes it useless for self defense, unless you're defending yourself against an entire country, which I think the federal government can take care of better than myself, as scary as trusting them is. You would have no use for a nuclear weapon to protect our contry from domestic aggressors (the federal government), as how would you use it against them without destroying millions of citizens who live peacefully? While you can own something if you want, so long as you don't misuse it, your desire to own a nuclear weapon is of fairly low importance to me. On the other hand, if you decide to go a little crazy, there are dire consequences. The constitution mentions "common defense" twice: once in the preamble and once in article 1, I think it's section 8... whatever the one is where congress' powers are enumerated. A single nuclear arm is a great threat to the common defense of the nation. Do you see here then why it's not your right to own a nuclear weapon? People have the right to live safely. If you don't use the nuke, no one is harmed - but is it prudent to trust hundreds of millions of lives so that one man can pursue his weapons hobby?

Anti's may argue that a single firearm can also do great damage, while your desire to shoot for recreation is of little importance to them. However, a gun is useful for defense. Personal, domestic, foreign. And guns are a good balance of power as they cannot be used by one man to devastate a nation, but they can be used by the masses to resist tyrannies. No single soldier in the military is trusted with nuclear arms, either. Guns can serve to protect the nation, nuclear arms can serve to destroy it. Somewhere in the middle of the two is a hazy line that you can deal with. But I'd like to see you hit a bad guy with a nuke and not harm any bystanders.

Note that so far I've demonstrated the imprudence of trusting you with a nuke, but have only hinted as to why it's not your right. Remember what I said about equality? The basic premise is all men and women are created equal. That means we all have the same rights, including self defense. How can I defend myself and my family against you, the man with an A-bomb? Even if I have one myself, I am vulnerable. Even if I have an army of a million men, I am defenseless against you. This is not equality. I am not your slave. I own my own body, and may protect it. It is not your right.

September 13, 2004, 12:32 PM
The 2nd amendment specifically mentions Militia, which has been determined by the courts to basically mean every able bodied person. In addition, Militia were required to bring their own firearms. IMO, we should be required to maintain an available firearm to bring when reporting as militia. Those would be of the type commonly in use by the military. Militia members were not and should not be expected to maintain heavy weapons, or nukes, since that would be a horrible financial burden. Still, it does only state "arms" in the amendment. Nothing was included to abrogate that responsibility and right under certain circumstances. That was because the framers knew that an opressive government would quickly say that circumstances existed to revoke that right. This has happened today and the opressive government and its totalitarian wing "liberals". (Actually fascists) They really know what the rest of us need, and how we should be governed by them alone. It is obvious that they really feel that the Republican party should be outlawed, just like they are outlawing the Greens and Ralph Nader. Third parties are only OK if they remove votes from the Republicans. Note that Republicans allowed third parties to compete, even when it cost them the elections with Ross Perot gaining 20% of the vote. Now Ralph Nader would cost the Dems 2-3% and they are forcing him off the ballot with the help of their hack activist judges. God forbid that they ever get in solid control of our country again. They won't miss that opportunity to put the rest of us forever in our deserved place, according to their desires.

September 13, 2004, 12:34 PM
I think of it like football- it's all about the DEFENSE!

It's hard to be defensive (against governemntal oppression, for instance) with a nuclear weapon. Detrimental effect aside, it's pretty much an offensive weapon.


September 13, 2004, 02:35 PM
They meant the same small arms that an infantryman would carry. I.E. Rifles and pistols.


They meant warships and cannon, too.

Yeah... Those are scarry though. lol.

Interesting to think how the owner of a heavily armed merchant vessel which is in no way related to any military organization could readily bombard a city.

It seems, however, that the reference to militia in the constitution was in reference to untrained citizens with small arms. That is what would have constituted a militia in those days.

September 13, 2004, 03:01 PM
Arms= guns, knives words...typically what we know as "small arms"

Ordinance= Nukes, bombs, misssiles, RPG's.

Check the dictionary link on front page.

September 13, 2004, 03:49 PM
RevDisk said:

The Second Amendment doesn't really cover explosives.

I disagree. A hand grenade is an explosive and should be covered by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment covers any arms that a man can "keep and bear." This would exclude anything crew served or bigger than one man could deploy alone. Machine guns, RPGs, TOWs, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, flash bangs, claymores, etc. all are and should be protected by the old 2A.

As far as a suitcase-sized nuke that one man could, "keep and bear," I don't know. It doesn't seem to have any real defensive use or in any way is it "necessary to the security of a free state." It is strictly an offensive weapon designed to be deployed with stealth and destroy material or a large amount of individuals.

On the subject of warships... I know that during the time that the Constitution was written many privateers were employed to help bolster the US Navy. I just don't know how I can defend that position inside the text of the Second Amendment.

September 13, 2004, 06:26 PM
thanks for your excellent replies, however the anti decided that this meant i was misinterpreting the second amendment.

eventually i just gave up. jeebus some people are dense :(

R.H. Lee
September 13, 2004, 06:39 PM
Just tell him that's a reductio ad absurdum argument, therefore not valid.

Gordon Fink
September 13, 2004, 06:49 PM
Which law is it again that prohibits civilians from owning nuclear weapons?

~G. Fink

September 13, 2004, 07:24 PM
Furthermore, if a citizen were to ever obtain a nuke, who would be dumb enought to tell them to hand it over?

Jeff Timm
September 13, 2004, 07:27 PM
Sekdar asked, "i'm having an agonizing discussion with an anti who keeps relying on my arguement that since the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the same weapons available to the military to assume that i think it's okay for my neighbor to own a nuclear bomb.

how on earth do you knock sense into a person who says this?"

How about, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have better things to do with their money than pooling it to build one nuclear bomb. Not to mention the fact that the thing will age within a few years and be useless anyway. Do you have any idea what weapons of mass destruction cost??

Geoff Timm
Who notes with all the petro-dollars he had Saddam couldn't build one.


September 14, 2004, 01:42 AM
In the RPG "Traveler" the possession of a nuke by anyone but a Government is an automatic life sentence. The USE of a Nuke by a non-government entity is an Automatic death sentence.

Despite that there are PLENTY of black market nukes available.

September 14, 2004, 03:14 AM
Now some of you are trying to splt hairs and read more into the document just like you accuse the antis of doing. It states "the right to bear arms". Nothing is said of small arms. You are adding that part. Arms meant whatever the military was using as you were to be able to answer the call to fight the military.
If you, your group, or your settlement chose to afford a canon to protect against hostile invaders then so be it. If you chose to arm your fishing boat to guard against piracy then also nothing was said. So they really could be the equal of the military of the day.
The call to arms didn't always mean you had to march off to battle. You could also be requested to defend your local area as it may be a vital crossroads, forging point on a river, or a sea port with docks.

September 14, 2004, 09:53 AM
here's a question, why even argue with that guy over this? he is obviously an idiot who is inetentionaly trying to heat you up. come on seriously! that's just freaking stupid.

September 14, 2004, 10:53 AM
You could point out that the government derives its power from the consent of the People and not the other way around. Therefore the government does not have any power that has not been granted to it by the People. If the government has nuclear weapons, it is because the People have given that power to the government. The People cannot give a power they do not have ie. in order to grant a power to the government, they themselves have that power. Therefore, the People have the power/right to own nuclear weapons?


If you enjoyed reading about "nuclear bomb versus individual weapons" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!