Posted on 02/02/2013 11:50:07 AM PST by real saxophonist
Great videos made by him. But as to the answer, nukes aren’t standard infantry gear to carry, so no. The most common gear for a soldier—yes. That’s what the Second Amendment is about. And “well regulated,” that means gear that is functional for its time (”regulation,” that is, contemporary gear that’s well made and in good condition: e.g., “genuine, regulation” rifle, canteen, cap, boots, etc.). And the typical American, too: good condition, ingenuous, etc.—not grouchy, and out of shape and wanting sedentary comforts too much, like most of us. ;-)
“The most common gear for a soldier—yes. That’s what the Second Amendment is about. “
Wrong! People used to own their own warships, cannons and all. The 2nd is about having the mean to defeat an out of control government regardless of the means necessary.
The rebuttal to this is "Well, nothing." The second amendment doesn't place any limits on the on the weapons we the people have the right to bear. It comes down to the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment. If we accept that people have the right to keep and bear arms then size and lethality should be no limitation. However, just as it is reasonable to assume that someone who has an M777 should have to have a LOT of insurance before they tow it and its associated ammunition down an interstate highway, it is only reasonable to require people to take proper precautions in storing and moving their ICBMs. I mean, if somebody is storing eight WM87s in the basement of the house next door to me, I'm going to complain to the HOA! The rule of thumb should be, if it can blow up and kill the people next door then it needs to be stored somewhere else - whether it's a WM87 or just a couple of RPG rounds
One problem I haven't figured out yet though is how to prevent arms races between nuclear weapons collectors. At seven million each, used, Minuteman missiles are not cheap. Only really rich guys will be able to afford them. (Think about the full auto guys at the range only richer.) These guys tend to be competitive. I mean if Bill Gates gets the bomb then Larry Ellison is going to have to have one, only to be told that he can't fly it into San Jose International because San Jose is a nuclear free zone. If Ellison gets the bomb, Google is going to get one and the next thing you know there's a missile silo on main campus right in front of Charlie's (Mountain View is a nuclear free zone too but I mean, its Google. If Google has the bomb, trust me, Apple won't be far behind and. Then there's Warren Buffett who'll be running all over Western Nebraska buying up old silos - and creating a new company to lease them to other rich guys, kind of like office condos, only for ICBMs. Preventing this sort of thing should be the real frontier of the gun control debate.
And on that note, here's a little music for a Saturday evening: Whose Next.
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.