The nuclear bomb in the basement?

[Greg Bell]

Chris,

"I have never heard a compelling reason that I should be forbidden from owning a nuclear explosive. "

It is as simple as this: people suck.



'So let's clear those two out of the way - There are many possible nonaggressive uses for nuclear explosives (most of which have never been explored because only the government can own them.) And there are just as many things that I don't want my idiot neighbor to own, starting with his ugly-??? bass boat. But that isn't rightly my business."

O.K. Your neighbor's bass-boat has a limited ability to harm others, as does his car and, indeed, his S.A.W.. A nuke or atomic bomb can kill millions in an instant. If Stanley next door loses his mind with his AK, hopefully his neighbors will dispatch him with their H&Ks. If Stanley next door loses his mind and sets off his W-88--everybody is instantly dead.


"Nobody (well, almost nobody) denies that the government has a right to own nukes, as well as weaponized gases, biotoxins, and other pleasantries. Since our government allegedly derives its powers from the consent of the people, it follows that the people have a preexisting right to own the same weapons that the government does. Pretty simple, at least from where I'm sitting."


The government also has a power to imprision its citizens for tax-evasion and execute its citizens for treason, etc. You can't do that, despite the fact that the government derives its power from the consent of the people.

'I'd consider accepting the ban of any weapon that the government also bans for its own self."

 

[Greg Bell]

double-tap

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Why does everyone seem to assume "nuke" translates as "yield in the kiloton to megaton range?"

Anyone see a legitimate use for a "claymore nuke" with a yield comparable to 500 lbs of TNT? Or for 3 liters of pure nicotine appropriately sealed (technically a "weapon of mass destruction," as a droplet on bare skin might just kill.) Both of these seem to offer some militia applications, without any undue risk to the surrounding community. No, I'm not suggesting it's OK to store a quarter-ton of TNT in the suburbs. But on a 400 acre farm, on the other hand, it shouldn't be a huge issue.

Besides -- think about cost here. What would plutonium sell for on an open market, anyway?

 

[Greg Bell]

"Anyone see a legitimate use for a "claymore nuke" with a yield comparable to 500 lbs of TNT? Or for 3 liters of pure nicotine appropriately sealed (technically a "weapon of mass destruction," as a droplet on bare skin might just kill.) Both of these seem to offer some militia applications, without any undue risk to the surrounding community. No, I'm not suggesting it's OK to store a quarter-ton of TNT in the suburbs. But on a 400 acre farm, on the other hand, it shouldn't be a huge issue."


Yeah, but we are talking about the nukes that most people think of when they hear the term.

Hey, I used to have a bottle of "Black Leaf 40!" Call the U.N.!

 

[Chris Rhines]

It is as simple as this: people suck.

Nope, still haven't heard one. People may indeed suck, but that ain't got no bearing on my right to own property. And it's really only my rights that I care about.

The government also has a power to imprision its citizens for tax-evasion and execute its citizens for treason, etc. You can't do that, despite the fact that the government derives its power from the consent of the people.

Of course - in reality, the government cares nothing for the consent of the peons...err, people. Government really derives its power from its monopoly on the use of force. Nuclear force, among others. Ironic, isn't it?

I was kinda half-joking when I suggested that the same weapons laws that apply to me be applied to the government at large. But, it does make sense. The stated intention of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the government remained less well armed than the citizenry.

Derek -

Why does everyone seem to assume "nuke" translates as "yield in the kiloton to megaton range?"

An excellent question. Generally, it is thought that 2-5ktons is the minimum possible yield for a single-stage nuke. The Soviets were doing some very sketchy research into sub-ton nukes back during the Cold War, but nobody seems to know if they got anywhere with it. Partly because private research into nuclear explosives is pretty much illegal. Shades of NFA'34, eh?

Besides -- think about cost here. What would plutonium sell for on an open market, anyway?

It'd be pricey, no doubt. Not to mention that you'd have to find someone willing to sell you a chunk (or a completed nuke, for that matter. I doubt that Home Depot would carry them.)

- Chris

 

[Greg Bell]

"Nope, still haven't heard one. People may indeed suck, but that ain't got no bearing on my right to own property. And it's really only my rights that I care about. "

Chris! John Hinckley will nuke Atlanta to prove his love to Jodie Foster. Get real! People are not rational actors. Osama could buy 100 and obliterate the U.S.A..

 

[Mad Man]

I'd consider accepting the ban of any weapon that the government also bans for its own self.

See David Kopel's National Review Online column regarding that subject.

one proposal: the Goose and Gander Amendment. Since it works as a supplement to the Second Amendment, we'll make it Amendment Two-and-a-Half:


1. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency, shall be allowed to possess firearms prohibited to the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

2. No government agency, nor any employee of any government agency, shall be exempt from laws and regulations regarding the possession or use of firearms which affect the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

3. All exemptions inconsistent with sections 1 and 2 shall be void beginning on the 30th day after the ratification of this amendment.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to exempt agencies and employees of the federal government from federal, state, or local laws and regulations related to firearms.

5. Nothing in this amendment shall apply to the Department of Defense or states' National Guards.

This amendment does not in any way restrict existing powers of the federal, state, and local governments to pass gun-control laws. Rather, the gun laws would be strengthened by being of more general applicability. Removing government exemption would provide an incentive for politicians and regulators to pass only those gun-control laws which are truly reasonable.

(very short) TFL thread about that article here at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=123709



If the police (or tax collectors or regulators) believe that machine guns, .50 BMG rifles, tear gas launchers, Air Tasers, etc. are necessary to "serve and protect" the community, then members of that community should have access to the same means to "protect" themselves.

Ronnie Barrett is the first person I know of who has put this idea into practice, with his refusal to sell his products to the LAPD, which has lobbied to outlaw them in California.

I don't know of any law-enforcement, tax-collection, or regulatory agency that possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Making government employees obey the same weapons-control laws is such a simple solution to the dilemma of "where to draw the line."

Anti-gunner: By your logic, the 2nd amendment protects the right to own artillery and nuclear weapons.

Answer: No, because those weapons are not necessary for the protection of the community. If they were, the police would have them.

Anti-gunner: Nobody needs an "assault weapon." They're only used by drug dealers to spray-fire school yards.

Answer: Tell that to the police who have them.

 

[WonderNine]

I always thought this said it best:

The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception

 

[Mad Man]

from The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception

After all, "we have to draw the line somewhere," and because of the "mystic nuclear weapons exception," they tell us that our rights and principles can't be our sole, absolute guide. Or that's what they'd have us think; and a surprisingly large number of people, even many pro-gun activists, fall for this argument and agree with it. The argument is false, and I'm going to prove it so, permanently, right here and now.

Well, he says that settles it, it must.

But seriously, when someone claims to prove something for once and for all, my eyes tend to glaze over, as they did with that essay.

Since the right to own weapons stems out of the right to self-defense, then people must only have the "right" to own weapons that are an efficient means of self-defense. Ideally, we'd be looking for something that could only work against "bad guys," but that will probably be always beyond our science; for now, we have to leave that job up to the human brain. This means a few things: most importantly, it means that the weapon in question must be capable of use with discretion, that is, it must be possible to use the weapon only against aggressors. If the weapon has any nasty side effects -- like inevitably killing innocent bystanders, killing the user, killing at random, killing people who happen to be in the same general area fifty years later (and are hence inevitably also innocent bystanders,) or some such similar flaw, then it can't be considered a "just" weapon, because its use would inevitably violate the non-aggression principle outlined above. For an individual armament to be an "efficient" means of self-defense, then, it has to be controllable by an individual; the individual user must have the capability to specify targets. Therefore we have our rule: people have the right to own whatever weapons they can obtain and use, provided that those weapons are of the sort which can be used without aggressing against innocents.

So that tells us what people don't have a right to; and deals with the "mystic nuclear weapons exception" along the way.

But guns are used to kill innocents (either deliberately or accidentally) -- even when wielded by agents of the state.

The other key thing to determine in choosing a weapon, besides efficiency, is "effectiveness" -- a sword is an efficient means of self-defense, in that it can be used with a great deal of discretion, but it is relatively ineffective in our world of full-auto rifles and advanced body armors.

If confronted by someone wearing "advanced body armors," I wouldn't mind having a sword. IIRC, some Darwin award candidates have been killed trying to "prove" that their bullet proof vest would protect them against a knife.

I think the earlier suggestion of gun bans applying to both the government and people is a better argument, because it provides a correcting mechanism against stupid gun control laws (in that the government doesn't want to be bound to stupid laws). It's also more in spirit with the intent of the 2nd Amendment, in that the populace is as well armed as the government.

 

[WonderNine]

But guns are used to kill innocents (either deliberately or accidentally) -- even when wielded by agents of the state.

So are big rocks.

 

[jimpeel]

The regulation of a thermonuclear device would fall within the purvue of the government's Constitutionally mandated duty to "provide for the general welfare."