Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]

My work, and the work of Thornwell Simons ^ | 07/12/2001 | Lazamataz

[Lazamataz]

Human intervention was performed during the siting and emplacement.

Insufficient. The human intervention must occur on the decision to detonate, since some innocent person such as a firefighter may be in the path of the weapon during the legitimate performance of his duties. You may have placed your weapons very safely in your X-Y-Z cartesian coordinate system, but the dimension of t (time) may cause the weapon to be unsafely placed.

Booby traps and land mines are wholely indiscriminate weapons, and cannot fall under the protection of the Second Amendment due to the indiscriminate nature thereof.

[Lazamataz]

While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating.

Thats as may be, but are you of the opinion that your rights triumph anothers rights?

To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

[Lazamataz]

Your arguments are very weak when it comes to machine guns,Machine pistols,Small explosive device

Not at all. Since they are somewhat less discriminating, I would establish some rules as pertaining to their use: No use when your backdrop is that of a crowded area; an idiot-check to make sure you are not effing nuts, and that is about it. Kinda like Brady Bill for Machine Guns only, and the repeal of the (in my opinion unconstitutional) 1934 National Firearms Act.

[Lazamataz]

2. Your arguments regarding the discriminatory capabilities of various weapons make plenty of sense, but they have little or no bearing on what the second amendment says (see my #14).

All of our rights are bracketed by the existence of our fellow-citizens rights. (Free speech and yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc etc). This should be self-evident. To argue against that is to argue you have superior rights to everyone else.

[humbletheFiend]

If we assume that the text of the Second Amendment does not make a distinction between dicriminating and indiscriminate weapons and if we further assume that none of the persons associated with the adoption of the Second Amendment ever even considered the distinction, can we nevertheless conclude that the Second Amendment protects only discriminating weapons because, if the persons associated with the adoption of amendment had actually thought about the distinction, they would have intended to limit the Second Amendment's protection to discriminating weapons?

[PatrioticAmerican]

Ya can have a nuke when ya gots a place to safely store it.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Now, Billy, what has your father told you about cats and nukes, huh?

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Perhaps. On the other hand, all the people of Japan were not aggressing against the US when we nuked them. Not that what we did was right, but we did what was nessecary to defend ourselves. Any right that men can assert collectively, I believe one man can assert individually. Do we have the right to kill innocents? No, unless to not do so means that we will be killed. West Bank anyone? Anyway, to some extent, people are guilty of the crimes of their leaders. If they are our own leaders, we would be foolish to kill ourselves in an effort to stop them. At some point, it may come down to us vs them. Someone lives, someone doesn't. If I am not the aggressor, and someone innocent has to die, I propose that it not be me. Unequal? If someone who is innocent has to die so another may live, you are correct. It is not equal. The children at Waco were apparently not equal. Then again, its the same government that killed them that wants to disarm us.

[SERE_DOC]

post #19

Good post Laz. But I'm still in the market for a W88.

Call me I'll cut you a good deal, time is short, and I have several buyers <_/grin_>

[Lazamataz]

There was only one known indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction known to the founding fathers at that time: biological agents.

One can reasonably conjecture that if they were interested in including indisriminate weapons, that the Second Amendment would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to keep and spread Contagious Diseases, shall not be infringed.

[Lazamataz]

The argument about nations and the rights they may or may not possess is a different topic. I have only addressed and discussed individual rights.

[inquest]

All of our rights are bracketed by the existence of our fellow-citizens rights.

Morally, that's true. But it's the job of the law to determine when our rights violate the rights of others. To argue otherwise is to argue that we don't need laws at all, other than "just make sure you don't violate anyone else's rights." Sounds beautiful, yes, but I think society might run into a bit of trouble unless its laws got a little more specific than that.

[Lazamataz]

Any right that men can assert collectively, I believe one man can assert individually.

And I also strenously disagree with this premise, but I am not interested in discussing that on this thread.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

I think I agree with some of the others here that it is up to me to discrimate how I use that which I am entitled to own. I am allowed to own my arm. If I hit you in the nose with it, that is separate. Then the question becomes whether or not it was within my rights to do so. I agree that it is hard to avoid trampling someone else's rights with a nuclear weapon. Yet, many people own them. Are they my master?

[ghostcat]

"Thats as may be, but are you of the opinion that your rights triumph anothers rights?"
In no way have I said that my rights trump others, that argument is a red herring, I expect better of you than that laz!

To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
If your nose walks into my arm as I am swinging while I have taken reasonable percautions against hitting your nose then in fact that is not true. If however I have not taken any reasonable percautions then I might have indeed violated your rights to have an un-hit nose. Rights do not exist in a vacum so that is why intent, and reasonableness of behavior, and degree of responsibility must be considered.

[Lazamataz]

Morally, that's true. But it's the job of the law to determine when our rights violate the rights of others. To argue otherwise is to argue that we don't need laws at all, other than "just make sure you don't violate anyone else's rights." Sounds beautiful, yes, but I think society might run into a bit of trouble unless its laws got a little more specific than that.

I think we have come full circle. Since you concede that one mans rights are bracketed by the next mans rights, we need to define arms more specifically, especially since the nature of arms have changed. Thusly, my argument about the bracketing of possession rights of WMD's against the rights of others to quietly enjoy their property.

[Fury]

This topic again? Sigh.... Set 'em straight Laz. I can't believe that someone believes the 2nd Amend. provides for the right to own AND USE nukes...

[William Tell]

Lazamataz said: "Oh, have you invented a new nuclear weapon that causes people who are aggressing against you to be vaporized, while only gently nudging people who are innocent and happen to be in the blast radius?"

You must agree then that the sniper rifle used by Lon Horiuchi against Randy Weaver is not protected by the Second Amendment. How else can one explain how Weaver's wife was killed unless you suspect that Horiuchi intended her death.

[pepsionice]

Well, this is a good question Larry. Actually, there is no federal law or state law that would prevent you from owning or operating a nuclear weapon, as long it is outside a school zone. I think congress has never really considered the possibility that someone just might want to own one or purchase one. Of course, if you were thinking of operating a nuclear power plant, thats different. You have to license and regulate that. But nuke weapons are not illegal.

[inquest]

Since you concede that one mans rights are bracketed by the next mans rights, we need to define arms more specifically, especially since the nature of arms have changed.

Since you concede that the nature of arms have changed since 1791, we need to pass a new constitutional amendment in order to define arms more specifically.