Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! (Vanity)
Vanity ^ | First Published 07/11/2001 | By Lazamataz

Posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And from John Adams:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons?

Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.

THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE

If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."

THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED

Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.

Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and can harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

 


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: banglist; liberalism; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
An old vanity I posted, but it's time to bring it back to life.
1 posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:35 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Well at least my cannon is OK, but I am kind of ticked I might have to get rid of my antitank missiles.
2 posted on 04/16/2007 7:45:30 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

Strawmen are what the left does best.

3 posted on 04/16/2007 7:46:46 AM PDT by Condor 63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You’re pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!


4 posted on 04/16/2007 7:47:03 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Canít the liberals start their own countries somewhere, and then surrender?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; EveningStar; feinswinesuksass; rattrap; BJClinton; al baby; agent_delta; ...
Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

Oops, guess I'd better get rid of mine...IF I had any, of course...


5 posted on 04/16/2007 7:47:44 AM PDT by JRios1968 (This tagline brought to you by courtesy of Happygrl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Why is the cannon proscribed from using "canister" rounds, while the shotgun isn't?
6 posted on 04/16/2007 7:48:00 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I have one. Got it on E-Bay. Wanna borrow it for a party?


7 posted on 04/16/2007 7:48:00 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Always Right

Can we still use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?


8 posted on 04/16/2007 7:48:21 AM PDT by JRios1968 (This tagline brought to you by courtesy of Happygrl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

As long as your nuke doesn’t have a pistol grip, it should be fine.


9 posted on 04/16/2007 7:48:37 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

At the time of the revolution, people owned privateering ships with large cannon.

How would those (cannons and armed man-’o-war) figure into your above categories?

Also, I have friends and relations who still own working cannons (we fire them at 4th of July, birthdays, etc.). Apparently these should fall under the 2nd Amendment as well, because they certainly own them and have charges for them.


10 posted on 04/16/2007 7:49:01 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Sorry, I don’t buy it. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent me from owning a nuke. At the time, probably the most destructive weapon was a cannon and private people DID own cannons. When they put these cannons on their private ships, they were called privateers.


11 posted on 04/16/2007 7:49:16 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Or a flash suppressor.


12 posted on 04/16/2007 7:49:53 AM PDT by FortWorthPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

What about photon torpedoes?


13 posted on 04/16/2007 7:50:01 AM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrew Byler
At the time of the revolution, people owned privateering ships with large cannon. How would those (cannons and armed man-’o-war) figure into your above categories?

Please read this article over, and try again.

14 posted on 04/16/2007 7:50:02 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Canít the liberals start their own countries somewhere, and then surrender?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

You’re pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!


I have always thought that we should furnish all the nuke grenades that Iran would like — also as many to the Hamas as well -— hehehehe :-)


15 posted on 04/16/2007 7:50:17 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

P.S. Ammendment Ammendment Ammendment Pfffffftt.


16 posted on 04/16/2007 7:50:27 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

—bflr—


17 posted on 04/16/2007 7:50:51 AM PDT by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I hope that it isn’t evil looking??


18 posted on 04/16/2007 7:51:05 AM PDT by US_MilitaryRules (Demoncrats can go to HELL. That is all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Sorry, I don’t buy it.

If you don't agree with me, I'm detonating this nuke.

19 posted on 04/16/2007 7:51:10 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Canít the liberals start their own countries somewhere, and then surrender?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You’re pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!

I've gotten too old for those. With my shoulder I just can't throw them far enough anymore and am not as fast as I used to be either.

20 posted on 04/16/2007 7:51:24 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I lean more towards “everything except nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons”. AA guns, artillery, battleships, tanks, claymores, RPGs, etc should all be kosher. I’d also personally like to see a revival of Letters of Marquee (the USA was smart enough to not sign the Declaration of Paris).


21 posted on 04/16/2007 7:52:05 AM PDT by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
—bflr—

Gbltsflk!

22 posted on 04/16/2007 7:52:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Canít the liberals start their own countries somewhere, and then surrender?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
I have always thought that we should furnish all the nuke grenades that Iran would like — also as many to the Hamas as well -— hehehehe :-)

Only if we could be assured they did not leave the country.

23 posted on 04/16/2007 7:52:39 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

In some societies a soldier was expected to arm himself and pay for his own service. Those who could do so were ‘nobles,’ and the rest were mercenaries. If an army were to be nukular-armed, the soldier himself would be expected to provide his own nuke and the horse to carry it. In our modern army the soldiers have to provide their own AA batteries and toothpaste, which are just as important as their sidearms, so by extension we might consider our modern army to still be playing under the same rules. If we have a nukular-armed army, the soldiers would be much appreciated if they muster with their own weapons provided they are compatible with state-furnished weapons.


24 posted on 04/16/2007 7:52:58 AM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Land mines and booby traps? Hell, there goes my perimeter defenses. Where did I put that shovel?
25 posted on 04/16/2007 7:52:58 AM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I might have to disagree.

In the Federalist Papers there is a quote about how freedom would remain as long as the common citizen had the same access to arms as the common soldier.

So I take that to mean machine guns and rockets are in and nukes and mustard gas are out.


26 posted on 04/16/2007 7:53:59 AM PDT by Kilt Dad ("Among the other evils being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Where do you store your nuclear waepons?........./Chekov voice


27 posted on 04/16/2007 7:54:17 AM PDT by Red Badger (If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, there's no need for consensus......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

My wife got tired of all the centrifuges in the garage so I had to settle for training a horde of suicide bomber spork weasels.


28 posted on 04/16/2007 7:55:24 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
New bumper sticker:

Visualize Laz with Nukes!

Now that's scary. :)

29 posted on 04/16/2007 7:55:51 AM PDT by TonyInOhio (Ave crux spes unica)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor 63
Strawmen are what the left does best.

Okay, As long as it's not a Wickerman...........

30 posted on 04/16/2007 7:56:33 AM PDT by Red Badger (If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, there's no need for consensus......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Keep and ‘bear’ arms? You mean keep and carry guns? I thought it meant “bare arms” as in wear short sleeved dresses.

(You should know no one can take anything you say serious. Give it up.) ;9)

BTW I will NEVER bare arms but I will carry a gun when I feel it is needed.


31 posted on 04/16/2007 7:58:56 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beer

32 posted on 04/16/2007 8:00:37 AM PDT by beeber (stuned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
--okay--I understand that an experienced poster such as you knows "bump for later reading", but Gbltsflk!---???
33 posted on 04/16/2007 8:02:41 AM PDT by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

I’m pretty sure you’re ok if your backyard has 10 or fewer nuclear silos. If it has more than 10, it falls under the Clinton Ban.


34 posted on 04/16/2007 8:03:44 AM PDT by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Guess this means I'll have to turn in the Davey Crockets I liberated that time. Man, I was hoping to use them at the ranch in self-defense.
35 posted on 04/16/2007 8:04:35 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

I’ll hide my ONTOS under the tarp. Tell everybody it’s a SUV I can’t afford the gas for........


36 posted on 04/16/2007 8:06:15 AM PDT by Red Badger (If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, there's no need for consensus......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Gbltsflk

Good Bump! Lovin' The Stalwart Freeper! Like Krazy!

37 posted on 04/16/2007 8:06:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Canít the liberals start their own countries somewhere, and then surrender?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You’re pissed? *I* have to get rid of my nuclear hand-grenades!

Um, how far can you throw one of those? And, what's the blast radius again?

Remind me to be somewhere else when you're practicing. ;-)

38 posted on 04/16/2007 8:07:02 AM PDT by Brujo (Quod volunt, credunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

In our modern army the soldiers have to provide their own AA batteries

They do? 20mm or 30mm? Anti Aircraft batteries are more expensive now that they’re radar guided you know!


39 posted on 04/16/2007 8:07:08 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: beeber

If it doesn’t have an MP3 player, it’s not cool.........


40 posted on 04/16/2007 8:07:14 AM PDT by Red Badger (If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, there's no need for consensus......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

“Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.”

Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate in nature. Therefore, you’re violating the 5th amendment rights of others “life, liberty and property” even by just possessing them. Example, if an accidental detonation or radiation leak where to occur, you would threaten the lives of thousands of people. The same holds true if one were to possess biological weapons. That’s where the individual safety right of others takes precedence over the 2nd amendment.

You do have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to own a weapon so powerful and indiscriminate that it’s mere possession threatens me and my family.

And of course if a nuke was used for self defense, you would vaporize all innocent people within a radius of several miles.

Guns on the other hand can be controlled by owner, and are not indiscriminate in nature.


41 posted on 04/16/2007 8:07:47 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
My question about whether Lazamataz should own a nuclear weapon and be the first one on his block to be the last one on his block, is simply, can he afford one?

Seriously, whole countries have bankrupted themselves trying to build one, and then found out that they have a short shelf life. The same thing with a howitzer. Every time you crank one off, there goes several thousand bucks, spiraling into the blue. It's odd that the shear staggering cost of operating one of these toys never seems to be mentioned.

Consider that an MG42 rips thru 1500 rounds a minute, at, say, $0.50 each, that's $750.00, plus the cost of a stellite lined barrel you just melted. Of course, to a Socialist, the mere sound of such a horror weapon would turn them all sickly and pale...

42 posted on 04/16/2007 8:08:02 AM PDT by jonascord ("Don't shoot 'em! Let 'em burn!...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

43 posted on 04/16/2007 8:08:24 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

Neither weree ships of war and those could be privately owned as well.

I cannot imagine a private citizen owning an aircraft caarrier (too expensive), but I could see them running a cruiser / yacht armed with Aegis and torpedoes.

Shipping companies could hire it out as an escort through the straits of Malacca for really valuable cargoes.

44 posted on 04/16/2007 8:09:13 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kilt Dad

The Federalist Papers are a good way to see what the founders were thinking about but the Constitution is the law of the land.


45 posted on 04/16/2007 8:10:34 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Machine guns and machine pistols are plenty discriminating, if used properly. Aimed, full-auto fire is not oxymoronic.

The same argument is used against so-called “assault weapons” by the antis. They rail against the “spray and pray” method, which can be exercised using semi- and full-auto arms alike.


46 posted on 04/16/2007 8:11:11 AM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

The government doesn’t have to ban a nuclear device, they can ban the fuel for it though.


47 posted on 04/16/2007 8:11:17 AM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances ? and it advances relentlessly ? freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
I lean more towards “everything except nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons”.

that's about where I'm at too ... I just cannot imagine someone owning a privately operated carrier. That would be cool but what a resource sink.

48 posted on 04/16/2007 8:11:24 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; All

—and kidding aside, during the gulf war , I saw a CNN correspondent seriously speak of the potential for “nuclear hand grenades”—obviously, the concept of “blast radius” had not occurred to him-—


49 posted on 04/16/2007 8:12:28 AM PDT by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

My personal opinion is that a shotgun is not much more discriminate than an assault rifle, which isn’t much more discriminate, when on full auto, as a submachine gun.

Who gets to draw the line of acceptability?

Also, I would argue that a submachine gun is less discriminate that a mounted machine gun.

Maybe the line should be drawn at whether there is residual damage after the defense of one’s self. Unfortunately, it could then be argued that if a gun does structural damage that could cause a structure to fall, it could be outlawed as well.


50 posted on 04/16/2007 8:14:18 AM PDT by Sensei Ern (http://www.myspace.com/reconcomedy - Ann Coulter is My Press Secretary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson