How to shut down the liberals "2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes" argument
- Thread starter MASTEROFMALICE
- Start date
- Status
joab
Member
That is the crux of all BOR arguments
The right to own implies the right to use
It is almost impossible to use a nuke without adversely affecting the rights of others
RoadkingLarry
Member
Wasn't there a movie..Pirates of Silicon Valley....
TwitchALot
Member
Bryan said:
I've heard this argument, but I've never found a good, definitive, and solid source that shows it to be true. Do you have one?
'shrooms
Well, it's good to see that at least a couple of y'all might understand: "A twist of the wrist, a few mushroom clouds and -- HEY! It's Miller Time!!"
I've seen the W-88 mentioned. The last one I dealt with was the W84: 18 inches in diameter, give or take a few millimeters, but a tad heavy when it comes to the "bear" part of our most interesting Amendment. Those actually required a couple of buttons to be pushed for release.
Or, another phrase courtesy of the Bad Old Days: "If I'm willing to vaporize twenty million Russians with a twist of my wrist, what makes YOU so 'special'?"
Ordnance, definitely ordnance. . . .
Well, it's good to see that at least a couple of y'all might understand: "A twist of the wrist, a few mushroom clouds and -- HEY! It's Miller Time!!"
I've seen the W-88 mentioned. The last one I dealt with was the W84: 18 inches in diameter, give or take a few millimeters, but a tad heavy when it comes to the "bear" part of our most interesting Amendment. Those actually required a couple of buttons to be pushed for release.
Or, another phrase courtesy of the Bad Old Days: "If I'm willing to vaporize twenty million Russians with a twist of my wrist, what makes YOU so 'special'?"
Ordnance, definitely ordnance. . . .
Nolo
Member
You said that you would say that you think that Jefferson wouldn't approve of a weapon with the power to kill 100,000 people.
The anti would just get you into a "how many is too many" argument.
Well, if they wouldn't approve of 100,000, what about 30 (the number of magazines in a standard AsR magazine, oft quoted as being too destructive for simple peons by antis)?
I'd avoid a numbers argument.
However, the artillery argument is quite valid.
The anti would just get you into a "how many is too many" argument.
Well, if they wouldn't approve of 100,000, what about 30 (the number of magazines in a standard AsR magazine, oft quoted as being too destructive for simple peons by antis)?
I'd avoid a numbers argument.
However, the artillery argument is quite valid.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
I would agree with the fact that it isn't aimed, it just causes general mayhem and long lasting environmental devastation. I'm all for stingers, but I personally draw the line at indirect fire weapons. I'm all for the community to have a local artillery storage next to the voluntary fire department though. I think the people should have the right, but sometimes it's just more practical for the sake of the militia to remain well organized to have a trained team for things such as mortars, howitzers, and other crew served weapons. It's the same reason each person doesn't have their own fire truck, sometimes it is better to have certain volunteers trained in a specific skill.
sacp81170a
Member
First one's there in 30 minutes or less or the second one's free...
PILMAN
Member
I always get this stupid question about nukes all the time.
Also, michael moore brought this question up in bowling for columbine.
Also, michael moore brought this question up in bowling for columbine.
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
I'm going to have to disagree here on this one. Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no way to anticipate just how radically technology would change the face of warfare. But everyone is focusing on the word "militia" and ignoring the intent and context of the greater concept. At that point in history, a group of men trained in and armed with muskets represented a credible military force, more or less on par with a standing army. Fast forward two hundred years, and rifles have become an increasingly marginalized tool in a military's arsenal. Even granting a militia the right to use destructive devices such as RPGs, MANPADs, and GPMGs, you're still never going to be a credible threat to a modern army without heavier ordnance.*
If the point of the 2nd amendment was to turn the populace itself into a deterrant against tyranny, then by definition they must be sufficiently armed to pose a threat to an established military force. The very concept of nuclear weapons, almost from their invention, has been to settle conflict without fighting by turning war into an all-or-nothing proposition. If nuclear weapons aren't a deterrance, then what is? From this standpoint, it seems clear that civilian ownership of nuclear devices is a logical product of the 2nd amendment. We can debate whether the authors of the Bill of Rights would have given it such a high priority, were they to know the future, but I don't think one can legitimately state that there is no Constitutional basis for their possession.
As to those who take up the anti's positions for them, and proclaim that there cannot be any legitimate purpose to the ownership of a thermonuclear device, let me just go ahead and Godwinize the discussion by positing this: what if the Jews had had one or two nuclear devices during the Holocaust (be they tactical or strategic)? How does one commit genocide against a people who can, at any moment, retaliate by eliminating entire cities and armies? It's worth pointing out at this juncture that Israel currently possesses somewhere in the vicinity of several hundred nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to be have both first and second strike capability across the region. Obviously, they consider nuclear weapons (and other WMDs) to have tremendous utility and importance to their self defence. If nations have a right to self defence against other nations, why don't citizens have a right to self defence against both other nations and their own?
*And yes, following this will be half a dozen people pointing out Iraq as proof of the falseness of that statement. Yet it's obvious on the face of the numbers that insurgents in Iraq cannot win; they can only keep fighting until we leave. Their actions can influence the political arena, but they cannot and will not ever prevail by force of arms alone. Ten million men died to push the Germans out of Russia and defeat Hitler. An average day's fighting on the Eastern front saw far more deaths than we've sustained in the entire war. And remember that our military, for whatever flaws it may be accused of having, is indeed seeking sincerely to preserve the lives of civilians...so no scorched-earth tactics, no wholesale slaughters, and no blatant disregard for life that makes "winning" so much easier for people like Pol Pot and Stalin. So no, loosely organized troops with squad-level weaponry cannot "win" in any meaningful sense.
If the point of the 2nd amendment was to turn the populace itself into a deterrant against tyranny, then by definition they must be sufficiently armed to pose a threat to an established military force. The very concept of nuclear weapons, almost from their invention, has been to settle conflict without fighting by turning war into an all-or-nothing proposition. If nuclear weapons aren't a deterrance, then what is? From this standpoint, it seems clear that civilian ownership of nuclear devices is a logical product of the 2nd amendment. We can debate whether the authors of the Bill of Rights would have given it such a high priority, were they to know the future, but I don't think one can legitimately state that there is no Constitutional basis for their possession.
As to those who take up the anti's positions for them, and proclaim that there cannot be any legitimate purpose to the ownership of a thermonuclear device, let me just go ahead and Godwinize the discussion by positing this: what if the Jews had had one or two nuclear devices during the Holocaust (be they tactical or strategic)? How does one commit genocide against a people who can, at any moment, retaliate by eliminating entire cities and armies? It's worth pointing out at this juncture that Israel currently possesses somewhere in the vicinity of several hundred nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to be have both first and second strike capability across the region. Obviously, they consider nuclear weapons (and other WMDs) to have tremendous utility and importance to their self defence. If nations have a right to self defence against other nations, why don't citizens have a right to self defence against both other nations and their own?
*And yes, following this will be half a dozen people pointing out Iraq as proof of the falseness of that statement. Yet it's obvious on the face of the numbers that insurgents in Iraq cannot win; they can only keep fighting until we leave. Their actions can influence the political arena, but they cannot and will not ever prevail by force of arms alone. Ten million men died to push the Germans out of Russia and defeat Hitler. An average day's fighting on the Eastern front saw far more deaths than we've sustained in the entire war. And remember that our military, for whatever flaws it may be accused of having, is indeed seeking sincerely to preserve the lives of civilians...so no scorched-earth tactics, no wholesale slaughters, and no blatant disregard for life that makes "winning" so much easier for people like Pol Pot and Stalin. So no, loosely organized troops with squad-level weaponry cannot "win" in any meaningful sense.
SoCalShooter
Member
I would, I would bring a 280mm Howitzer delivering W-19 nuclear weapon...of course on some type of self propelled rigg
Zundfolge
Member
The problem with accepting this premise is that their argument is that it is impossible for you to own a gun without adversely affecting their rights (in particular their "right" to "feel" safe).
The reason I hate this argument is that if you accept even the slightest bit of their premise then you have lost the entire argument.
If the 2A isn't absolute, it isn't absolute ... ANY "reasonable" restriction on your RKBA means that anything they define as "reasonable" is also valid ... no nukes means no machine guns means no "high capacity" semi autos means no handguns ultimately means nothing but single shot .22lr that must be kept at a government armory that is only open from noon to 2pm every third Saturday.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Food For Thought
Where do you suppose the Union obtained its authority to arm itself with nukes? From our right to arm ourselves with nukes - or any other weapon. We have the right. From that right we loan power to a few of us, give them money to pool, and those to whom we've loaned that power take that money and build weapons we couldn't afford to build on our own. Some of us do have enough money and the Constitution doesn't prohibit - in fact protects - our right to those weapons.
How those weapons are used can be governed. The unlimited use of weapons is not protected by the Constitution, nor is it authorized to the Union except in war or through the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Hmmm, "...through the militia...". Well, what'd'ya know! That's us, ain't it? Seems to me, when an invading army aboard an enemy fleet sneaks up on us, and some one of us sees it coming, wouldn't it be prudent to take out that shipboard army before they land? I think a nuke could be aimed accurately enough to take out that fleet and not destroy the whole country. Bigger targets require bigger weapons. It's just a matter of scale and having the weapons that fill the bill available. It only takes one finger to press the button.
Woody
The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.
Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply grant some of that power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have granted power to the government to have.
It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear our arms, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not grant power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power granted to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.
Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our government. All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control how I choose to keep and bear my arms. It is that simple.
Where do you suppose the Union obtained its authority to arm itself with nukes? From our right to arm ourselves with nukes - or any other weapon. We have the right. From that right we loan power to a few of us, give them money to pool, and those to whom we've loaned that power take that money and build weapons we couldn't afford to build on our own. Some of us do have enough money and the Constitution doesn't prohibit - in fact protects - our right to those weapons.
How those weapons are used can be governed. The unlimited use of weapons is not protected by the Constitution, nor is it authorized to the Union except in war or through the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Hmmm, "...through the militia...". Well, what'd'ya know! That's us, ain't it? Seems to me, when an invading army aboard an enemy fleet sneaks up on us, and some one of us sees it coming, wouldn't it be prudent to take out that shipboard army before they land? I think a nuke could be aimed accurately enough to take out that fleet and not destroy the whole country. Bigger targets require bigger weapons. It's just a matter of scale and having the weapons that fill the bill available. It only takes one finger to press the button.
Woody
The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.
Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply grant some of that power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have granted power to the government to have.
It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear our arms, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not grant power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power granted to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.
Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our government. All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control how I choose to keep and bear my arms. It is that simple.
Here's how I address the "2nd amendment doesn't let you keep a nuke! it isn't absolute!"
I reply "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can give classified nuke documents to foreign governments, so how big of a blow is that to an individual's right to own pornography, or talk bad about our government"
I reply "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can give classified nuke documents to foreign governments, so how big of a blow is that to an individual's right to own pornography, or talk bad about our government"
ConstitutionCowboy
member
The Freedom of Speech isn't absolute, but the right to keep and bear arms is. You can cause harm with your speech while the simple keeping and bearing of arms is benign and innocuous.
Arms cause no harm unless you launch, press the button, pull the trigger, light the fuse, plunge the plunger, crank the handle, swing the sword, loose the arrow, etc., etc. It's the same with words. Until you use them, they too are benign and innocuous. The Second Amendment doesn't limit government from governing some of the uses of arms where as the First Amendment does limit how government can limit the use of words. See the difference? First amendment covers use. Second Amendment only covers keep and bear.
You can pass law that would forbid you to practice with your nukes on land or anywhere within a thousand miles from the surface of the Earth. That's "use" and not keep and bear.
Woody
Arms cause no harm unless you launch, press the button, pull the trigger, light the fuse, plunge the plunger, crank the handle, swing the sword, loose the arrow, etc., etc. It's the same with words. Until you use them, they too are benign and innocuous. The Second Amendment doesn't limit government from governing some of the uses of arms where as the First Amendment does limit how government can limit the use of words. See the difference? First amendment covers use. Second Amendment only covers keep and bear.
You can pass law that would forbid you to practice with your nukes on land or anywhere within a thousand miles from the surface of the Earth. That's "use" and not keep and bear.
Woody
Fletchette
Member
What does the police have?
If they feel they need full autos to deal with criminals, so do we as we have to deal with the same criminals.
Do the police have nukes? I rest my case.
If they feel they need full autos to deal with criminals, so do we as we have to deal with the same criminals.
Do the police have nukes? I rest my case.
IA_farmboy
Member
My argument against "Second Amendment doesn't mean we can have nukes" is the same for any law against ownership. The simple fact of ownership should not be illegal by any means, and that includes nuclear weapons. Possessing any dangerous device or substance can, and should, be regulated when the device or substance is handled improperly.
It is not illegal to own ground beef. It is not illegal to eat ground beef. It is not illegal to sell ground beef. However should you decide to store that ground beef in your back yard in an open container that is likely to be illegal as the odor would be offensive to the neighbors, and/or it could attract alligators/bears/lions/other wild animals that would pose a threat to others. Serving or selling ground beef that is undercooked or rotten would also likely get you in trouble.
Just having a tank, fighter jet, or nuclear weapon (all of which came up in conversations with co-workers when debating civil liberties) should not be illegal. If you decide to take your tank down the city streets at high speed and leave a path of crushed vehicles, downed street lights, and torn up lawns expect your ride to come to a sudden, and fatal, end. (This is exactly what happened to an upset Reservist.) Someone that is threatening serious injury or death with a knife, grenade, pistol, bucket of water, nuclear device, or an undercooked hamburger has just crossed the line from peaceful citizen to criminal and should expect the proper response from citizens and/or law enforcement that should be unhindered to fight back with an equally deadly weapon.
It's not the tool, it's the person. There are few things I can think of that are so inherently dangerous that they should not be in the hands of an adult of sound mind. Problem is that how does one determine one is of sound mind, that is where I get the most arguments from people I talk to about civil rights.
I keep hearing that "some people" are not responsible enough to own something as dangerous as a handgun. Since a handgun is SO dangerous one must first be checked out to determine one is "worthy" of owning such a dangerous device.
I usually come back with, "Don't you trust me to have a handgun/tank/nuclear device?" Either out of truth or politeness the response is, "I trust YOU, but there are some people that I do not trust." This usually follows with an example of an idiot doing something idiotic with something dangerous.
This it the trouble I have is finding a middle ground with one's right to defend one's self, family, and property and the ability to keep dangerous people away from dangerous things. My solution so far is to not keep anything from anybody unless or until one proves themselves unworthy. I should not have to prove my worthiness to own a weapon, and neither should anyone else. If a person has shown that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, or a nuclear weapon, then they should not be allowed to roam freely. If a person is deemed unsafe to operate a firearm (such as the examples given by my co-workers) then they should be deemed unworthy of handling a motor vehicle, matches, a computer, or a teakettle.
The authors of our Constitution owned warships, during World War II civilians were given bombs to drop from airplanes onto German submarines (with one confirmed kill, I might add). Today we have people jumping over our borders, pirates still raid ships at sea (and they don't have parrots on their shoulders, peg legs, or matchlocks, they do have automatic weapons and artillery), and crime... lots of crime. We should be able to own what ever devices and weapons we see fit to defend ourselves.
If my government representatives don't trust me with a handgun then why should I trust them with... well, anything?
I'm ranting and raving on but I feel I must add one more thing. The biggest problem I have with all of this regulation is that it leads to big (and expensive) government that doesn't know when to stop regulating, spending and getting bigger. Every law that tries to legislate me into heaven is another camel's nose under the tent flap. A background check means they can deny my rights with little recourse. A registration of my firearms means that they can take my rights in the future. All these claims that the gun laws are for my benefit does not compute with me. Motor vehicles are licensed, stamped, insured, inspected, regulated, modulated, and tabulated like you wouldn't believe and yet we still have all kinds of idiots that speed, drive drunk, kill, steal, drive without licenses, drive without insurance, and drive without seat belts and otherwise cause havoc and mayhem.
We don't need more laws, we need fewer laws. We need to enforce the laws that we have. (There's an idea, enforcement!) Perhaps we should take away some of these "for your safety" laws and put Darwin's theory to the test.
It is not illegal to own ground beef. It is not illegal to eat ground beef. It is not illegal to sell ground beef. However should you decide to store that ground beef in your back yard in an open container that is likely to be illegal as the odor would be offensive to the neighbors, and/or it could attract alligators/bears/lions/other wild animals that would pose a threat to others. Serving or selling ground beef that is undercooked or rotten would also likely get you in trouble.
Just having a tank, fighter jet, or nuclear weapon (all of which came up in conversations with co-workers when debating civil liberties) should not be illegal. If you decide to take your tank down the city streets at high speed and leave a path of crushed vehicles, downed street lights, and torn up lawns expect your ride to come to a sudden, and fatal, end. (This is exactly what happened to an upset Reservist.) Someone that is threatening serious injury or death with a knife, grenade, pistol, bucket of water, nuclear device, or an undercooked hamburger has just crossed the line from peaceful citizen to criminal and should expect the proper response from citizens and/or law enforcement that should be unhindered to fight back with an equally deadly weapon.
It's not the tool, it's the person. There are few things I can think of that are so inherently dangerous that they should not be in the hands of an adult of sound mind. Problem is that how does one determine one is of sound mind, that is where I get the most arguments from people I talk to about civil rights.
I keep hearing that "some people" are not responsible enough to own something as dangerous as a handgun. Since a handgun is SO dangerous one must first be checked out to determine one is "worthy" of owning such a dangerous device.
I usually come back with, "Don't you trust me to have a handgun/tank/nuclear device?" Either out of truth or politeness the response is, "I trust YOU, but there are some people that I do not trust." This usually follows with an example of an idiot doing something idiotic with something dangerous.
This it the trouble I have is finding a middle ground with one's right to defend one's self, family, and property and the ability to keep dangerous people away from dangerous things. My solution so far is to not keep anything from anybody unless or until one proves themselves unworthy. I should not have to prove my worthiness to own a weapon, and neither should anyone else. If a person has shown that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, or a nuclear weapon, then they should not be allowed to roam freely. If a person is deemed unsafe to operate a firearm (such as the examples given by my co-workers) then they should be deemed unworthy of handling a motor vehicle, matches, a computer, or a teakettle.
The authors of our Constitution owned warships, during World War II civilians were given bombs to drop from airplanes onto German submarines (with one confirmed kill, I might add). Today we have people jumping over our borders, pirates still raid ships at sea (and they don't have parrots on their shoulders, peg legs, or matchlocks, they do have automatic weapons and artillery), and crime... lots of crime. We should be able to own what ever devices and weapons we see fit to defend ourselves.
If my government representatives don't trust me with a handgun then why should I trust them with... well, anything?
I'm ranting and raving on but I feel I must add one more thing. The biggest problem I have with all of this regulation is that it leads to big (and expensive) government that doesn't know when to stop regulating, spending and getting bigger. Every law that tries to legislate me into heaven is another camel's nose under the tent flap. A background check means they can deny my rights with little recourse. A registration of my firearms means that they can take my rights in the future. All these claims that the gun laws are for my benefit does not compute with me. Motor vehicles are licensed, stamped, insured, inspected, regulated, modulated, and tabulated like you wouldn't believe and yet we still have all kinds of idiots that speed, drive drunk, kill, steal, drive without licenses, drive without insurance, and drive without seat belts and otherwise cause havoc and mayhem.
We don't need more laws, we need fewer laws. We need to enforce the laws that we have. (There's an idea, enforcement!) Perhaps we should take away some of these "for your safety" laws and put Darwin's theory to the test.
NeenachGuy
Member
As proper safety precautions are followed, such as storing the nuclear weapon unarmed, preferably with the detonator in a separate location, and always keeping the nuclear weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times, I don't see anything wrong with it, providing that special provisions about firing the nuclear weapon in proximity to populated areas, or across state or national highways, are called out specifically in the letter of the law.
sacp81170a
Member
def4pos8
If they've never opened the survival kit and put a lead eye patch on their shooting eye so it wouldn't get flash burns, they don't understand...
whiskey tango foxtrot, over
Uh, the fallout pattern from Cheyenne, Wyoming extends east to Chicago. So I guess a safe direction would need about 400 miles or so, eh? Kinda limits things, don't it?
If they've never opened the survival kit and put a lead eye patch on their shooting eye so it wouldn't get flash burns, they don't understand...
whiskey tango foxtrot, over
Uh, the fallout pattern from Cheyenne, Wyoming extends east to Chicago. So I guess a safe direction would need about 400 miles or so, eh? Kinda limits things, don't it?
sacp81170a
Member
Your tank and your fighter jet can sit and quietly rust for a century or two and no one would be harmed...
Not so with your nuclear weapon. If it deteriorates sufficiently, it can render your whole city uninhabitable. It's dangerous simply because it exists.
It can cause death, destruction and injury without any intervention or intentional use on anyone's part. Not so with my cannon, machine guns or TOW missiles.
Then by that definition, nuclear weapons are not arms. Unless you propose that it's harmless for a neighbor to have a high-level radioactive waste dump in his basement, that is.
paramedic70002
Member
joab
Member
What if the Crips had a nuke in LA, what if Sharpton had a nuke in Jena, what if McVeigh had a nuke, what if Oral Roberts had a nuke anyone who would say that God was going to kill him if he didn't come up with enough money would surely turn that into God told me to destroy Sodom if y'all didn't pay up.
I have no problem with nuke ownership
However the possession of any nuclear material that would go into that device should be heavily regulated, because the mere ownership of that material poses a significant threat to others
Then they can show where the Constitution deals with feelings at all.
Their premise has no basis in reality so it is not accepted in the slightest. There is nothing in the Constitution about feeelings
If they resort to that argument you will realize that you are arguing with a juvenile mentality and willhave to adjust your argument accordingly
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
