Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?

[Glockman17366]

This is the kind of discussion that plays into the anti's hands.

It's pretty obvious if an individual cannot have a nuke, they can't have an "assault" rifle...there you go.

So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment?

Well, this has always been my argument:
Any weapon the government (state or federal) is allowed to use, possess, keep or maintain within the borders of the United States or any territories shall be available for ownership by the people (meaning individual citizens) under the Second Amendment.

Therefore, we could have anything the government could have and they would be limited to what they can have.
The intent is the citizenry is to have parity with the government to ensure their rights and freedoms.

 

[Glockfan.45]

It's pretty obvious if an individual cannot have a nuke, they can't have an "assault" rifle...there you go.

Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate.

So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment?

For me it stops at weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, we could have anything the government could have and they would be limited to what they can have.
The intent is the citizenry is to have parity with the government to ensure their rights and freedoms.

Are you really advocating civilian nuclear weapons? Did I wake up on the wrong planet today?

 

[budney]

Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

Nope--and that's why nobody will manufacture or sell them. The market is funny that way: they don't produce things they can't sell. Though there might be uses we haven't thought of, of course. They might be just the ticket for mining asteroids. I don't know.

Your insurance argument doens't fly either. If I were a lunatic set out to kill millions I doubt I would care if my insurance dropped me.

BUT THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. As I said, this consideration applies at every level of the production chain. The guy making the parts wants insurance, so he must be choosy who he sells to. The guy assembling the device wants insurance, so he has to be careful who he buys from and who he sells to. The trucking company that does the delivery wants insurance, so they don't accept packages marked "To Kabul--Careful! Nuclear!" And so on.

Ever hear of the START treaties? That is the Government acting to not "allow themselves all the nukes they want".

That's funny. I've heard rumors that the government does have nukes. Someone must have screwed up somewhere. Hint: government "policing itself" is... well... need I finish the sentence?

--Len.

 

[budney]

Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate.

The dividing line is: all those 2A armed citizens, thinking that Jefferson armed them to resist tyranny, will get an unpleasant surprise when the President announces, "So called 'Free Wyoming' is in rebellion against the United States of America. I've been asked whether the 'nuclear option' is on the table. All I can say is, all options are on the table..."

I don't want ordinary citizens to have nukes--but I don't want the government to have them either. They sorta make the whole 2A thing moot, you know? Indeed, the 2A was designed to prevent the creation of standing armies... but who needs standing armies when you've got nukes?

--Len.

 

[Glockman17366]

"Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate."

No, I'm not... But the anti's often argue those points. Common sense does not prevail when debating with the anti-rights folks.
BTW, I own an AR15, 2 AK47's and a few SKS rifles

""So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment? "

For me it stops at weapons of mass destruction."

That's right...for you. And that's common sense. But where is that limitation written or documented? Common sense and the laws do not agree sometimes (most the time?).
Theoretically, one could own a nuke or any other WMD as there is nothing in the Second Amendment stating any limitation. That's where the laws come in. The problem is the balancing of a right vs. the needs of a society. With the anti-rights folks, "assault" rifles do not fall under the right to bear arms...nor do any other weapons to the "collective right" believers.

"Are you really advocating civilian nuclear weapons? Did I wake up on the wrong planet today?"

Of course not...read the post again. The intent is parity with the government within the borders of the United States. In other words, we cannot possess nukes...neither could governement use them within the borders of the US. We cannot possess tanks, or artillery guns, neither could the government within the borders of the US. Any weapon the goverment is allowed to possess within the borders of the US would be available to the individual citizens.
This would also severely limit or eliminate the "militarization" of law enforcement. To me, this militarization is a bad thing for freedom.

Did I clarify that enough?

BTW, Budney brings up a good point about a standing army. Does a free society want such a thing? But, that's a hot topic for another thread.

 

[30 cal slob]

will i have to leave my nuke in the car if my employer doesn't let me bring it into the office?

 

[Correia]

BUT THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. As I said, this consideration applies at every level of the production chain. The guy making the parts wants insurance, so he must be choosy who he sells to. The guy assembling the device wants insurance, so he has to be careful who he buys from and who he sells to. The trucking company that does the delivery wants insurance, so they don't accept packages marked "To Kabul--Careful! Nuclear!" And so on.

BWA HA HA HA!

Oh man, that's a good one.

"Achmed! We must hurry and deliver this mighty weapon to Osama so that it can rain fire upon the infidel!"
"Wait... Allstate says that they'll cancel our insurance if we do so."
"NOOOOOOOOO!"

 

[budney]

Oh man, that's a good one.

Correia, now you're not even reading what you're answering. That's kind of annoying. I said, and I even yelled it in case you were hard of hearing, that THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. That's the seller, not the buyer. Got that straight? Not the hairy Arab who wants a bomb, but the guy in the Armani suit selling it. So the parody you want is:

"Sell me a nuk-lee-ahr bomb, infidel dog!"
"No."
"What? I said sell it to me now! Allah curse you!"
"No."
"Your stomach will roast in hell! Sell it to me!"
"Um, that'd be no."

(hours later)

"Achmed tells me you won't sell him big bomb! Infidel dog!"
"Achmed tells you right. Go pound salt."
"You will sell it to us! It is instrument of divine vengeance!"
"Let me think about that one. OK, I thought about it. No."
"Allah curse you! You have not seen the last of Jamal Mustafa!"

(hours later, in a burka)

"Nice young man, will you kindly sell me nuclear device? Have woodchuck problem"
"Sorry ma'am, that'd be 'no'."
"They're very pesky. Eat all my carrots."
"Sorry to hear that ma'am."
"One little nuke? Nice young man?"
"No."
"Your stomach will roast in hell! Infidel dog!"

(etc.)

 

[scout26]

In addition to its Nazi gun laws, Oak Park Illinois actually has an anti-nuke law.

Many years ago (well before 9/11) I saw one of their "Oak Park is a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone" signs so I called the village clerks office and the conversation went something like this:
Me: What's the fine for possessing or transporting a nuclear weapon through Oak Park ???
Clerk: $500
Me: And what's the fine for denotating one within the village limits.
Clerk: {CLICK}

 

[Correia]

THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE.

Oh, no, I heard you. And I think you're naively underestimating the power of greed and corruption.

If Iran makes nukes, Israel is done as a nation within a matter of months, because they're not even going to sell them, they're going to GIVE THEM AWAY.

Kim Jong Ill? You mean to tell me that if a Saudi businessman with Jihadi tendancies came up to the Dear Leader, and offered to transfer one billion dollars into one of Kim's accounts, then he wouldn't sell one?

Hell, there are Russian, French, and Germans that will sell a nuke if the money was right. And since these are more than likely stolen anyway, then they ain't really worried about their insurance getting cancelled.

And you're the one that brought up the shipper getting his insurance revoked. (i.e. to Kabul) Not me.

The whole thing is frankly asinine.

Now we can get back to Libertarian Purityfest 2007.

 

[budney]

And I think you're naively underestimating the power of greed and corruption.

No, I'm not--that's why I want to disarm government. The flaw in government regulation of nukes is that the ones you can least trust are exactly the ones with their fingers on the button.

If Iran makes nukes... they're going to GIVE THEM AWAY.

Ridiculous. There's no way to do that without endangering themselves. They want nukes (IF they're actually working on nukes) as a bargaining chip. Which they need because they've already been threatened by the US "all options are on the table" administration with a nuclear holocaust.

And you're the one that brought up the shipper getting his insurance revoked. (i.e. to Kabul) Not me.

That's the shipper, not the buyer. What you keep overlooking is that getting a nuclear bomb designed, built, assembled and delivered is a mammoth undertaking--a literal miracle, impossible before the highly advanced markets of the 20th century. ANY disruption in that long, complex supply chain means: no nuke.

Private nuclear "regulation" operates by attacking the earlier stages of the supply chain, such as the uranium miners and the centrifuge makers--it does not wait until the Arabs have picked up nukes at Walmart and then try to figure out how to prevent them from being used. They won't even be available in Walmart, because even if Mr. Walton is fool enough to want to stock them, an angry public will promptly drive him out of business.

It's the idea that "freedom" means "nukes would be on sale at Walmart" that's asinine. It doesn't mean that at all. But your fear of that ridiculous possibility is enough to make you accept a very real and present nuclear threat: the man who says, "I'm the decider. And I say that every option is on the table..."

--Len.

 

[Correia]

Ridiculous. There's no way to do that without endangering themselves. They want nukes (IF they're actually working on nukes) as a bargaining chip. Which they need because they've already been threatened by the US "all options are on the table" administration with a nuclear holocaust.

Yeah, why should I believe the leadership of Iran when they flat out say that they want to bring about the end of the world? Why should I take them at their own word? Surely they just want them in order to "bargain". It must be because we're such big meanies to threaten them with nuclear destruction because they plan on killing an entire country of our allies. Silly us.

No, I'm not--that's why I want to disarm government.

Good luck with that. Perhaps if you wish hard enough, global nuclear disarmament will be delivered to you by a leprachaun riding on a magical unicorn.

What you keep overlooking is that getting a nuclear bomb designed, built, assembled and delivered is a mammoth undertaking--a literal miracle, impossible before the highly advanced markets of the 20th century. ANY disruption in that long, complex supply chain means: no nuke.

And I think you need to do a little more research about how easy it is to build a working nuclear weapon if you have the fissionable materials. This isn't the 1940s, where the machine tools with precise enough measurements were a rarity. My pocket calculator has more computing power than the Manhattan Project.

The amazing thing is that North Korea still managed to make theirs suck that bad.

So you honestly belive that in the absence of governments having nuclear weapons, the desire to use them would just evaporate?

 

[budney]

Yeah, why should I believe the leadership of Iran when they flat out say that they want to bring about the end of the world?

Except they haven't said that. It doesn't help your case to use untruths as facts.

Good luck with [disarming the government].

Well, it obviously isn't happening any time soon. But the interesting thing to me is that you are part of the reason. You might talk about Jeffersonian principles, resisting tyranny, the 2A, etc., but deep down you believe that they should have the power to impose their will on you and me "for our own safety."

And I think you need to do a little more research about how easy it is to build a working nuclear weapon if you have the fissionable materials.

If you check back in this thread, it was I who pointed out how easy it is to build a low-yield (AKA "Hiroshima-sized") nuclear bomb. Which is why the current governmental regulation of nukes is guaranteed to be no more effective than private regulation would be. You're contrasting imperfect private regulation with nonexistent perfect governmental regulation.

The primary reason there have been no ~15KT bombs built yet is that nobody has really wanted to badly enough. They're of severely limited usefulness. Even the mighty US arsenal is practically useless, except as a deterrent. But the fact remains that there are many steps to building even a primitive nuke, so there are many points at which intervention can be applied. Only an idiot would wait until Mustafa had his finger on the shiny red button before asking, "OK, what do we do now?"

So you honestly belive that in the absence of governments having nuclear weapons, the desire to use them would just evaporate?

I'm interested in ability, not desire. Right now, people exist with the ability to launch a nuclear strike. They're the ones we should be worried about. Yet they manage to get us in a lather about some turbaned yahoo. The man with his finger on the nuclear button actually had us more worried about Saddam Hussein than about him[1]. That's a good trick.

--Len.




[1] When the Iraqi invasion started, I was a rabid right-winger[2]. I fully believed that Saddam either had, or was about to have, nuclear weapons, and supported the invasion on that basis. When they later tried to claim that WMDs weren't the real reason for invading, that it was a humanitarian mission of liberation, etc., I was mighty disillusioned. Lying to your opponents is bad enough, but lying to your supporters?

[2] I know, I know--lefties always claim that. But I'm no lefty. The proof? For one thing, I support free markets. For another, I support arming citizens, including pilots, stewardesses and airline passengers. If that won't give a left-winger the vapors, nothing will. Heck, it gives some right-wingers the vapors.

 

[dhoomonyou]

paging jack bauer.

 

[Werewolf]

The problem with that argument is that there are responsible uses for firearms in private hands. Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

Actually there have been quite a few suggested peaceful and responsible uses for NUKES over the years.

The one that comes to mind as I sit here is using them to build canals especially long and large canals.

The hardest part about making a canal is actually digging the big ditch. With nukes you just drop them in a hole about a 1000 feet deep, plug the hole and set it off. Voila - instant section of canal and no fallout.

At one time building a canal from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to the Pacific using nukes was being very seriously discussed - late 60's early 70's.

I read once that if nukes had been used to build the Panama canal the digging of the trench part would have taken about a week.

Some folks might argue that though that may be a peaceful use of nukes it isn't a responsible one. Personally I don't see a downside since supposedly there is no fallout.

 

[TallPine]

Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

Um, digging a farm pond maybe...

Hold my beer and watch this!

 

[buzz_knox]

The Russians attempted to use nuclear weapons as excavating tools, including the Chagan test in 1965. The test created a lake by damming a river. The lake is still radioactive.

 

[Glockfan.45]

The hardest part about making a canal is actually digging the big ditch. With nukes you just drop them in a hole about a 1000 feet deep, plug the hole and set it off. Voila - instant section of canal and no fallout.

Um no not at all. You might avoid fall out, but the ground and the water runnig over it would be radioactive for decades. Dumping nuclear waste into two large bodies of water (Pacific, Gulf of Mexico) doesn't sound like a good idea at all.

 

[obxned]

Since most of the good weapons-grade material has already been bought up by people with rags on their heads, your first problem is getting fissionable material in sufficient quantities. Good luck with that!

 

[Werewolf]

Um no not at all. You might avoid fall out, but the ground and the water runnig over it would be radioactive for decades.

True - IF one uses a fission device. Fusion devices, on the other hand, mostly give off very short lived radiation and even the stuff resulting from the fission trigger has half lives way shorter than a normal fission device most of which measure in the days and the rest months. The amount of really long lived isotopes created by the fission trigger in a fusion device are so small as to be irrelevant.

I'm just guessing mind you but I imagine that the main reason nuclear bombs aren't used in an excavation role is the highly probable negative (and uninformed) reaction by the general public. Hell look at the hew and cry that occured over food irradiation - a totally safe process - that would have resulted in packaged food that would require no refrigeration and would stay fresh for years.

The very idea of radiation freaks out your every day Joe and Josephine six pack even though they have no clue what radiation is. All they know is it is bad which is baloney. Radiation used correctly is no more bad than a gun lying on a table. I wonder how many would be shocked if they knew they were getting 10 times the normal hourly dose of background radiation every time they get an X-Ray or fly on a plane?

 

[Correia]

But the interesting thing to me is that you are part of the reason.

-Larry Correia: Responsible for world nuclear proliferation since 1975.

You might talk about Jeffersonian principles, resisting tyranny, the 2A, etc., but deep down you believe that they should have the power to impose their will on you and me "for our own safety."

Oh yeah, you know me so very well. I'll have to see if I can borrow Jeff White's Jackboots and Coronoch's puppy shooting gun...

How about his, you can talk about Jeffersonian principles (p.s. I'm not so sure that the founding fathers would neccesarily agree with you on this one) until you're blue in the face, as an anonymous poster on the intraweb, but tomorrow morning, no matter how hard you wish for your libertarian principles to triumph, it ain't gonna happen. Bad people will still want nukes. Regular people won't be allowed to have them. And governments will have big weapons that can flatten whole cities. And guess what? It ain't because of other anonymous people disagreeing with you on the internet.

 

[Gifted]

Early fusion weapons actually produced more fallout, since it wasn't actually the fusion that made up most of the yield. That yield was produced by fissioning of the 238 tamper around the fusion section by the neutron flux produced by the fusion.

I'm not sure about modern weapsons, but you're still going to have more than you want. There's a limit to how efficient a bomb can be and it's significantly less than 50%, which means that 50% of the plutonium/uranium/whatever they use these days is still there--it doesn't take much to hurt you either.

 

[hso]

Ok, this has broken up into three camps, none of which have anything to do with firarms.

1) Jokers - the foks that are getting the most out of the OP.

2) Political Enthusiasts - wayyyyy too serious for such a silly post

3) Geeks, like me - nuclear weapons uses, limitation, regulations, we could have fun with the details for days


But, the question's been answered (thanks Librarian) and the topic is not actually firearms related and some folks are taking themselves far too seriously so this one's closed