How to shut down the liberals "2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes" argument

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have yet to see a militia with a nuke. But suppose they were legal? There are whole countries with billions of dollars that have been trying for years to make them and are still unsuccessful. It took North Korea 30 years and then help from the US to make just a handful. Despite what you read on the internet making a nuke with a chemistry set is a little out of the realm of possibilites. Buying one? Despite what you read on the internet you can't just pickup a back pack nuke from the former USSR for a cool million (even if they were legal).
 
From what I've gathered, most artillery pieces and chainguns used during the civil war were privately owned pieces.

Shall Not Be Infringed means exactly that.
 
Also keep in mind that most WMDs are developed by private citizens so at some point there WERE nukes (and other WMDs) in the hands of US Citizens who then gave (or sold?) them to the US Government.
Click to expand...

Uh, I think your history is a little off. The Manhattan Project did involve civilian scientists who were asked to join in the effort, but it was done under the control of the military at all times. It's not like Henry Ford built the first nuke and handed it over. There were no nukes until the War Department got involved.

Another problem with nukes is that they deteriorate fairly rapidly compared to other weapons. A 10 year old nuke that hadn't been upgraded and maintained would be either dangerously unstable or nearly useless.
 
I always use the Ann Coulter answer........"if they interpreted the 2nd Amendment like they did the 1st, we'd have the right to bear nuclear arms now....."
 
Nukes are neither small arms nor can they be reasonably used in a defensive manner at all, hence they are not protected by the Second Amendment.
All nukes are are tools of coercion, I doubt that any reasonable gov't in the world would use a nuke. These weapons are capable of destroying a country down to the ecological level for literally decades to come.
 
but not nuclear weapons.I've stood near them in Submarines and in warships and they aren't attractive to look at
Click to expand...


I don't know, the old SUBROC missile had a kind of stark esthetic beauty to it and there is a certain elegance to a Harpoon cruise missile in flight. I will agree though that the Trident missiles are just big phallic looking things with no particular style.

The cost to procure, store and maintain a nuclear weapon and its delivery system pretty much makes the whole argument moot anyway.
 
Um, I don't think chainguns existed during the Civil War.
Click to expand...
Sure they did, Col. Zebadiah Nukem carried one almost exclusively (his great grandson "Duke" is a little more famous for his). :p
 
There weren't chainguns... but there were Gatling guns. 150 rounds per minute, rotating barrels, metallic cartridges gravity fed from a hopper.

Designed in 1861, built and patented in 1862.
 
I've heard the argument too many time that people would never be allowed to own their own nuclear missles and, therefore, the second amenment guaranteeing the ownership of arms is clearly limited. They'll usually say something like, "Oh then I guess you think everyone should have nuclear weapons then, huh?"
Click to expand...

Attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like trying to teach pigs to whistle.
 
A nuclear weapon is the quintessential weapon of mass destruction. It not only kills indiscriminately by fire, it can poison an area of hundreds of square miles.

A thing so horrible was not even remotely on the horizon at the time of creation of the Constitution. It is the worst sort of overreaching by analogy to compare conventional arms to weapons of mass destruction.

At the time of the creation of the Constitution, shoulder-fired arms were owned by multitudes of men. Cannons were owned by a smaller group of men.

The only difference between today's modern shoulder-fired weapons, and modern artillery is the speed with which it can be reloaded, and the accuracy of the fire.

Rifle and cannon are arms.

Poison and fire are not arms.

Perhaps one could argue that the individual man should be allowed unfettered possession of poison and fire. But there is no foundation for such argument to be found in the Second Amendment.
 
There are whole countries with billions of dollars that have been trying for years to make them and are still unsuccessful. It took North Korea 30 years and then help from the US to make just a handful. Despite what you read on the internet making a nuke with a chemistry set is a little out of the realm of possibilites.
Click to expand...
IIRC, there was a kid a while back that ripped apart hundreds of smoke detectors of something and actually built a trashcan sized reactor. I think some details of my story are off, but the gist of it is that it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
 
Found it
David Hahn, nicknamed the "Radioactive Boy Scout", is a boy scout who had previously earned a merit badge in Atomic Energy and had spent years tinkering with basement chemistry which sometimes resulted in small explosions and other mishaps. He was inspired in part by reading The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments, and tried to collect samples of every element in the periodic table, including the radioactive ones. Hahn diligently amassed this radioactive material by collecting small amounts from household products, such as americium from smoke detectors, thorium from camping lantern mantles, radium from clocks and tritium (as neutron moderator) from gunsights. His "reactor" was a large, cored-out block of lead, and he used lithium from $1000 worth of batteries to purify the thorium ash using a Bunsen burner.

Hahn posed as an adult scientist or professor to gain the trust of many professionals, despite the presence of misspellings and obvious errors in his letters to them. Hahn ultimately hoped to create a breeder reactor, using low-level isotopes to transform samples of thorium and uranium into fissionable isotopes.

Although his home-made reactor never achieved criticality, it ended up emitting toxic levels of radioactivity, likely well over 1000 times normal background radiation. Alarmed, Hahn began to dismantle his experiments, but a chance encounter with police led to the discovery of his activities, which triggered a Federal Radiological Emergency Response involving the FBI and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, having designated Hahn's mother's property as a Superfund hazardous materials cleanup site, dismantled the shed and its contents and buried them as low-level radioactive waste in Utah. Hahn refused medical evaluation for radiation exposure.
Click to expand...
 
okay,I can understand small arms,for self-defence and target-shooting,but not nuclear weapons.I've stood near them in Submarines and in warships and they aren't attractive to look at or suitable for any purpose,other than creating doomsday and a post-apocalyptic world.Come on,nukes are best left alone,in the hands of the government,because these things are designed to kill people on a large scale and I'm happy and relieved that after 1945,no nation in the world,has used them in warfare.
Click to expand...

Be carefull of that incremental slippery slope you're standing on there, millimeter by millimeter it can be used to whittle down and restrict your rights. Just because I "can" doesn't mean I "will". And even though practically speaking it might be unreasonable for a private citizen to own o possess a nuke, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it given he same limitations and restrictions as are placed on whole countries. A military base can't keep their armory adjacent to an elementary or secondary public high school with the door open and the firearms just laying around and no fence around the facility. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand with ownership, doesn't matter if it's a baseball bat or a motorcycle or a handgun or a nuke. Realistically, yeah, sure, no reasonable person would own a nuke, but if you talk to the tin foil hat crowd who can recite numerous Executive Orders one could potentially have concern with even the government owning and controling a nuculear weapon. At what level do you want to impost restrictions and infringements? Anything bigger than .499" diameter with a rifled barrel perhaps? Semi versus full auto perhaps? 10 round magazine versus 18 round magazine perhaps? Practically, yeah, no private nukes, but fundamentally no infringement means just that - no infringement.

As extreme and potentially crazy as it sounds, it's is basically very simple.

Out in California up by Donner Summit there is a rock called Lover's Leap. Its real easy to stand on the top of it. But if you gradually and slowly creep closer and closer to the edge of it pretty soon you will reach the point of no return, and without help you will either be stuck in place not able to return to safety or you will go over the edge to certain peril. I hope we, as a country, never get to that point of no return. YMMV.
 
Here is sort of a dumb question... What LAW forbids the ownership of a nuclear device? Have to register it as a Destructive Device, and pay a $200 tax stamp. I'm sure there are hundreds of DOE regulations you must comply with. But is it actually illegal right now?
 
Hi yesit'sloaded,

It wasn't smoke detectors it was mantles for camping lanterns. I read some of his papers. I'd give some of my theories where he was on the wrong track but the mods may not like a semi-how to. Basically all you need is a vacuum chamber and an electron accelerator for "low level" isotopes then use their breakdown for progressively higher molecular weight isotopes.

Heavy water is more fun and a lot less expensive. Not to mention a lot less likely to glow in the dark.

Selena
 
Hi Ron,

Here is sort of a dumb question... What LAW forbids the ownership of a nuclear device?
Click to expand...

IIRC the radioactives would fall under the regs of half a dozen regulatory agencies, Food & Drug included oddly enough, but not the device itself. Once your state got done with you, the Feds would kick in. Then, of course, getting the radioactives you are almost sure to violate some international agreement. Rest assured, should you manage to acquire or manufacture fissionables, the radiation would be detected and you would be visited long before you had enough for crit mass. The Great White Father in Washington gets most annoyed and extremely vindictive when the unwashed masses try to build their own reactor.

Selena
 
I can imagine the Form 4 for a nuke:

Quote:
Type of firearm: Destructive Device
Model: W88 Mk1, manufactured 1990
Caliber, gauge, or size: 475kT nominal
Length: 69.5in OAL (excluding delivery system and payload shroud)
Stamp denomination: $200
Click to expand...

I can see the mailroom clerk at the BATFE now: "Uh, boss?"

That said, I've made the argument that a nuke is so powerful that it isn't a weapon anymore. It's political force, and owning one exceeds your own political legitimacy.
 
Here is sort of a dumb question... What LAW forbids the ownership of a nuclear device? Have to register it as a Destructive Device, and pay a $200 tax stamp. I'm sure there are hundreds of DOE regulations you must comply with. But is it actually illegal right now?
Click to expand...

" TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 23--DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Division A--Atomic Energy

SUBCHAPTER VIII--MILITARY APPLICATION OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Sec. 2121. Authority of Commission


(a) Research and development; weapons production; hazardous wastes;
transfers of technologies

The Commission is authorized to--
(1) conduct experiments and do research and development work in
the military application of atomic energy;
(2) engage in the production of atomic weapons, or atomic weapon
parts, except that such activities shall be carried on only to the
extent that the express consent and direction of the President of
the United States has been obtained, which consent and direction
shall be obtained at least once each year;
(3) provide for safe storage, processing, transportation, and
disposal of hazardous waste (including radioactive waste) resulting
from nuclear materials production, weapons production and
surveillance programs, and naval nuclear propulsion programs;
(4) carry out research on and development of technologies needed
for the effective negotiation and verification of international
agreements on control of special nuclear materials and nuclear
weapons; and
(5) under applicable law (other than this paragraph) and
consistent with other missions of the Department of Energy, make
transfers of federally owned or originated technology to State and
local governments, private industry, and universities or other
nonprofit organizations so that the prospects for commercialization
of such technology are enhanced.

(b) Material for Department of Defense use

The President from time to time may direct the Commission (1) to
deliver such quantities of special nuclear material or atomic weapons to
the Department of Defense for such use as he deems necessary in the
interest of national defense, or (2) to authorize the Department of
Defense to manufacture, produce, or acquire any atomic weapon or
utilization facility for military purposes: Provided, however, That such
authorization shall not extend to the production of special nuclear
material other than that incidental to the operation of such utilization
facilities."

That's a good start. Here's the teeth:

" TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 39--EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES

Sec. 831. Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials

(a) Whoever, if one of the circumstances described in subsection (c)
of this section occurs--
(1) without lawful authority, intentionally receives, possesses,
uses, transfers, alters, disposes of, or disperses any nuclear
material or nuclear byproduct material and--
(A) thereby knowingly causes the death of or serious bodily
injury to any person or substantial damage to property or to the
environment; or
(B) circumstances exist, or have been represented to the
defendant to exist, that are likely to cause the death or
serious bodily injury to any person, or substantial damage to
property or to the environment;

(2) with intent to deprive another of nuclear material or
nuclear byproduct material, knowingly--
(A) takes and carries away nuclear material or nuclear
byproduct material of another without authority;
(B) makes an unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer, of
nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material belonging to
another; or
(C) uses fraud and thereby obtains nuclear material or
nuclear byproduct material belonging to another;

(3) knowingly--
(A) uses force; or
(B) threatens or places another in fear that any person
other than the actor will imminently be subject to bodily
injury;

and thereby takes nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material
belonging to another from the person or presence of any other;
(4) intentionally intimidates any person and thereby obtains
nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material belonging to another;
(5) with intent to compel any person, international
organization, or governmental entity to do or refrain from doing any
act, knowingly threatens to engage in conduct described in paragraph
(2)(A) or (3) of this subsection;
(6) knowingly threatens to use nuclear material or nuclear
byproduct material to cause death or serious bodily injury to any
person or substantial damage to property or to the environment under
circumstances in which the threat may reasonably be understood as an
expression of serious purposes;
(7) attempts to commit an offense under paragraph (1), (2), (3),
or (4) of this subsection; or
(8) is a party to a conspiracy of two or more persons to commit
an offense under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection,
if any of the parties intentionally engages in any conduct in
furtherance of such offense;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under--
(1) paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a) of this section
is--
(A) a fine under this title; and
(B) imprisonment--
(i) for any term of years or for life (I) if, while
committing the offense, the offender knowingly causes the
death of any person; or (II) if, while committing an offense
under paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a) of this
section, the offender, under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to the life of an individual, knowingly
engages in any conduct and thereby recklessly causes the
death of or serious bodily injury to any person; and
(ii) for not more than 20 years in any other case; and

(2) paragraph (8) of subsection (a) of this section is--
(A) a fine under this title; and
(B) imprisonment--
(i) for not more than 20 years if the offense which is
the object of the conspiracy is punishable under paragraph
(1)(B)(i); and
(ii) for not more than 10 years in any other case.

(c) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) of this section
are that--
(1) the offense is committed in the United States or the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or the
special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in
section 46501 of title 49);
(2) an offender or a victim is--
(A) a national of the United States; or
(B) a United States corporation or other legal entity;

(3) after the conduct required for the offense occurs the
defendant is found in the United States, even if the conduct
required for the offense occurs outside the United States;
(4) the conduct required for the offense occurs with respect to
the carriage of a consignment of nuclear material or nuclear
byproduct material by any means of transportation intended to go
beyond the territory of the state where the shipment originates
beginning with the departure from a facility of the shipper in that
state and ending with the arrival at a facility of the receiver
within the state of ultimate destination and either of such states
is the United States; or
(5) either--
(A) the governmental entity under subsection (a)(5) is the
United States; or
(B) the threat under subsection (a)(6) is directed at the
United States.

(d) The Attorney General may request assistance from the Secretary
of Defense under chapter 18 of title 10 in the enforcement of this
section and the Secretary of Defense may provide such assistance in
accordance with chapter 18 of title 10, except that the Secretary of
Defense may provide such assistance through any Department of Defense
personnel.
(e)(1) The Attorney General may also request assistance from the
Secretary of Defense under this subsection in the enforcement of this
section. Notwithstanding section 1385 of this title, the Secretary of
Defense may, in accordance with other applicable law, provide such
assistance to the Attorney General if--
(A) an emergency situation exists (as jointly determined by the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense in their discretion);
and
(B) the provision of such assistance will not adversely affect
the military preparedness of the United States (as determined by the
Secretary of Defense in such Secretary's discretion).

(2) As used in this subsection, the term ``emergency situation''
means a circumstance--
(A) that poses a serious threat to the interests of the United
States; and
(B) in which--
(i) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if
the assistance were not provided; and
(ii) civilian law enforcement personnel are not capable of
enforcing the law.

(3) Assistance under this section may include--
(A) use of personnel of the Department of Defense to arrest
persons and conduct searches and seizures with respect to violations
of this section; and
(B) such other activity as is incidental to the enforcement of
this section, or to the protection of persons or property from
conduct that violates this section.

(4) The Secretary of Defense may require reimbursement as a
condition of assistance under this section.
(5) The Attorney General may delegate the Attorney General's
function under this subsection only to a Deputy, Associate, or Assistant
Attorney General.
(f) As used in this section--
(1) the term ``nuclear material'' means material containing
any--
(A) plutonium;
(B) uranium not in the form of ore or ore residue that
contains the mixture of isotopes as occurring in nature;
(C) enriched uranium, defined as uranium that contains the
isotope 233 or 235 or both in such amount that the abundance
ratio of the sum of those isotopes to the isotope 238 is greater
than the ratio of the isotope 235 to the isotope 238 occurring
in nature; or
(D) uranium 233;

(2) the term ``nuclear byproduct material'' means any material
containing any radioactive isotope created through an irradiation
process in the operation of a nuclear reactor or accelerator;
(3) the term ``international organization'' means a public
international organization designated as such pursuant to section 1
of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) or
a public organization created pursuant to treaty or other agreement
under international law as an instrument through or by which two or
more foreign governments engage in some aspect of their conduct of
international affairs;
(4) the term ``serious bodily injury'' means bodily injury which
involves--
(A) a substantial risk of death;
(B) extreme physical pain;
(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a
bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;

(5) the term ``bodily injury'' means--
(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement;
(B) physical pain;
(C) illness;
(D) impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty; or
(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary;

(6) the term ``national of the United States'' has the same
meaning as in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
(7) the term ``United States corporation or other legal entity''
means any corporation or other entity organized under the laws of
the United States or any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession,
or district of the United States."

Note that, in this case, Posse Commitatus can be set aside at the request of the AG and the military can be used to recover nuclear material. As a former USAF Security Police NCO with 10 years in nuc security, I can assure you that we would be used and that collateral damage would not be a consideration. That is, in fact, regulation where nuclear weapons are concerned. If you should happen to be taken hostage when a nuclear weapon was captured, kiss your *** goodbye, 'cause the airstrike will be inbound shortly. Serious enough for ya?
 
This argument is pretty retarded. I simply explain that nukes/submarines/warships are a bit too expensive for the average criminal to obtain.

I mean... can you imagine Bill Gates raiding the west coast in a warship?

I see no problem with 'simple civilians' owning an MBT. The only problem is: who is gonna sell you one? I think lighter armored vehicles might be in the price range of a small group of citizens to buy and maintain.
 
Not nukes: but didn't just about all the signers to the constitution own their own warships?

If they did, do you think they intended to allow the ownership of such by citizens going forward?

c2k
 
Those little ferret deals look pretty cool. And only 15k. Thats the price of a transferable MG.

Wouldn't I love to cruise that down the freeway... =)

c2k
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own Weapons of War, no?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
A
  • Locked
Is Justice Clarence Thomas taking over Scalia's mantle of most pro-2nd Amendment...?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
barnbwt
barnbwt
wow6599
  • Locked
True meaning of the 2nd
Replies
24
Views
827
LNK
L
J
  • Locked
Brilliant 2nd Amendment Argument
Replies
10
Views
758
Brick
B
M
  • Locked
The Pro Gun argument to end all arguments?
Replies
18
Views
1K
dmftoy1
D
Back
Top