Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/16/2012 7:14:32 AM PST by marktwain
I suspect that it would take quite a while for the idea of nuclear weapons to take hold. It is rather hard to determine how they would handle it. They might well want the State governments to have and control them.
I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of affairs, if you can afford one you can have one. It's just that they aren't really very useful if your aren't a nation state (read gang of armed thugs convinced of your moral superiority).
Guns obviously have self-defense purposes and a citizenry armed with guns can keep government in check.
I don’t see how a tactical nuke could possibly provide for self-defense. If anything, I’d see a nutcase obtaining one and killing thousands. If a nutcase gets a gun, you can shoot him. But if he detonates a nuke, its too late for anything to be done about it. A warship is similar to a nuke in those respects. That’s why I’m surprised to hear about how it was legal for private citizens to own them.
Is the idea of the Second Amendment really to let the citizens have the same weapons as the military?I thought the “right to bear arms” just meant guns. So you’re saying it means citizens should legally be allowed to possess aircraft carriers and tactical nukes?
Yes indeed. In fact, the Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes the private ownership of warships with the following from Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
It goes on with more quaint and now discarded notions about how to run a country. Interesting reading, really.
It is still legal for private citizens to own them. It just takes a lot of permits and red tape.
I do not know of any law that forbids private citizens from owning nukes, as such. The laws regulating nuclear materials are strict and the permitting process quite extensive. I think it would be possible for a person with the financial means to own a nuke legally. It would just cost billions of dollars to do so.
I know a number of people that own armored vehicles. I think Dillon of the Dillon press company owns at least one armed helicopter.
There is likely some well heeled individual that owns a small warship, perhaps PT boat sized.
I have a feeling they wouldn't even discuss it much.
The author is a post turtle.
Why do leftists immediately go to the furthest extreme in any debate? There are a plethora of weapons between a rifle and a tactical nuke.
The journalistic embodiment of a turd, and a creation in it’s maker’s image.
I'm not a leftist and I'm not debating anyone, so you can can the insults.
You may not be a leftist but your argument was a classic leftist extreme straw man used time after time by the gun control lobby. It is not an insult to point that out it is simply an observation and that was all it was intended to be.
Ok, I understand.
I’m sure you can see how I read your comment the way I did, though.
They are very expensive to purchase and required special permits, but fully-automatic weapons are legal to own.
From the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.The government's powers are delegated to it by its citizens.
That means that if I don't have the right (if I can afford it) to own and operate an aircraft carrier, I can't delegate that right to the government.
Thanks for taking me at my word. That helps.
So, since I don't have the right to impose and collect taxes, then the government doesn't either? I wish things worked that way.
That is a good point and one the libs would never want to concede unless it fit one of their pet agendas. Even then they would say it only applied to that.
The counter-argument might be that we have delegated that authority to the FedGov. For now. I would not use the language of 'delegating the right to the gov' though because the right remains the people's. We only cede them some authority.
In a sense individuals do have a right to impose and collect taxes. If you sell something you can set whatever price you choose to. If you want to charge foreigners 5% more to buy your product or service I believe you could.
In a general sense, you do have that right.
Consider yourself a member of a small settlement out in the middle of a hostile nowhere.
For some reason, (bandits, predatory animals, rising river, whatever), it’s necessary for someone to stand guard/watch overnight, every night.
It’s then reasonable for the community to demand that everyone capable of taking a turn standing watch do so.
From there, it’s not much of a stretch to decide to pool resources to support someone who will permanently sleep during the day and stand watch every night. From there, everyone has a choice of either contributing to the pool, taking a turn standing watch, or leaving the community.
You have now demonstrated your right to impose and collect taxes.
We don’t so much delegate that authority to the government as allow them to exercise it on our behalf.
If you hire a night watchman to watch your stuff so you can sleep, it doesn’t mean you can’t yourself investigate mysterious bumps in the night.
'Delegate' isn't the same as 'concede' though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.