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

[HaveGunWillTravel]

suitcase nukes, dictators, servants of the people. Whoever has control of the nuke owns it for all practical purposes. This can certainly be an individual. We rely on that individuals discretion and respect for the rest of us. That individual may as well be me.

[inquest]

But don't you see the hole that you're digging yourself into by doing that? When you encourage the courts to go off the board with regard to what the law says, then you're riding a wild horse; you can't really control them after that. "Whoopee! We don't have to hold ourselves to the law!" Do you really think that they're going to use the power that you've encouraged them to grab, in the manner that you'd want them to? The only way to keep these jokers under control is to demand of them a strict fealty to the law. Then, if you want to change how the law is applied, then you'd have to change the law itself. That's the bargain we made 200 years ago. We need to make it stick again.

[Rodney King]

Good post Laz.

[Lazamataz]

Whoever has control of the nuke owns it for all practical purposes.

Absent your knowledge of nuclear fire controls and chains of command, I do not see how you can reasonably assert that.

[society-by-contract]

Private warships could, did and do engage in ship-to-shore bombardment. By the way you have a facility, as witnessed in other posts and other threads, to convey your ideas effectivly through the use of humor.

Brady

[Khepera]

Thread 3? Where is 1 and 2?

[Dan Day]

Here's my own essay in response to the "second amendment nukes" argument -- I wrote this years ago:

Subject: Yes, 2nd amendment protects nukes

People often ask, "well, if the second amendment to the US Constitution protects the private ownership of arms, then does that mean you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?"

Most respondents approach this issue with something to the effect that this can be resolved by interpreting "arms" as meaning "personal arms" (i.e. those which can be carried and used by an individual against another individual). Others "resolve" it by saying that this issue "obviously" shows that the Constitution must be allowed to be re-interpreted to accord with "common sense".

However, I think this misses the point. First, the writings of the people who wrote and ratified the second amendment give the clear impression that they meant *all* arms, including cannon and privateer ships. Second, it's as wrong to "creatively interpret" the second amendment in order to say that these days it should apply only to personal arms as it is to say that it now applies only to the National Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and can be totally ignored. Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the first amendment protection of free speech only to, say, distribution methods reaching only a limited number of people.

In short, I think the proper approach is to say that yes, the second amendment was written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are indeed covered by it. Now before anyone has a heart attack, let me point out that I, too, think it is a good idea that individuals not own nuclear weapons.

So what's the solution? Why, to follow the procedure that the Constitution itself provides for modifying a provision of the Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it following the procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the constitution did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit changing conditions. They planned that if conditions *did* change enough to warrant an alteration in the provisions of the Constitution, it should be done with due care and consideration, and only upon the agreement of two thirds of each house of congress, and three fourths of the legislatures of the states.

If times have indeed significantly changed since the day the second amendment was ratified to protect the right to keep and bear all arms, then it should be a simple matter to get the congress and the states to agree upon the issue of which weapons are too dangerous for individual ownership, and an amendment listing those arms exempted from the protections of the second amendment should be ratified.

*This* is the proper way to react to changing times -- not arbitrary decisions, whether they be personal, legislative, executive, or judicial.

The second amendment protects all arms. If you don't like that, try to amend it. For some arms, it will be easy to get the majority opinion required to ratify that exemption, and you will then have the blessing of the Constitution itself. For other arms, you might find it more difficult to acquire a consensus, and you'll have to live with the fact that not enough people agree with you.

[Lazamataz]

But don't you see the hole that you're digging yourself into by doing that? When you encourage the courts to go off the board with regard to what the law says, then you're riding a wild horse;

The charged term "to go off the board with regard to what the law says" should be replaced with the more neutral term "interpret the law". And as to that, a gentle hint: The courts already do this. :o)

The Supreme Court of the United States is singlemindedly preoccupied with the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Lazamataz]

I started at thread three to make people believe this thread is more popular than it is. :o)

[Pistias]

Cannon shooting ball shot

I think you're overestimating your skill as an artellerist. Put that in group two.

[Lazamataz]

I think you're overestimating your skill as an artellerist. Put that in group two.

Awwww comon dad, I promise I won't shoot Joey's eye out....!

[inquest]

"Interpreting" the law isn't the same thing as re-writing the law, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, no matter how well-intentionedly. And yes, as I pointed out earlier, I'm plenty aware that the courts do this already. And I want to stop it, not encourage them further.

[Pistias]

Booby trap

And what is this doing in three? A booby trap in my yard isn't hurting anyone that should be there. What, are we talking a claymore setup with flechettes?

[Lazamataz]

Needless to say, we disagree because of the reasons I relayed in the article and the related assertion that my rights are bracketed by your rights.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

I'm sure that for the most part, there are very few single individuals who could single handedly cause a weapon of mass destruction to be activated. I do believe, though, that there are single individuals who exercise that control. People who possess suitcase nukes, Saddam Hussien, airline pilots when the co-pilot is in the bathroom, etc. I think the question comes down to possession vs discretion of use. I don't think its fair for some to own while others are prohibited. If we aren't all equally entitled to own what we will, then might is right. In which case owning a weapon gives you the right to.

[Pistias]

And what about a death ray? One with a really, really narrow beam? Flamethrower? Flash grenades? A four-alarm chili fart?

[humbletheFiend]

Absent that clause, I reasonably assume they had no intent to INCLUDE the possession and use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

Well, I understand your argument to be that, from their mere failure to expressly include in the Second Amendment protection for the one indiscriminate weapon that you believe they had (contagious diseases), we are at liberty to assume that that omission represented a conscious decision on their part to exclude from the protections of the Second Amendment any and all indiscriminate weapons that might be invented or discovered in the future. I think that I might be more comfortable with your argument if there was some historical evidence linking their probably unconscious failure to expressly include contagious diseases with a conscious design on their part to exclude all indiscriminate weapons from the amendment's protection. Moreover, I think that the most reasonable inference to draw from the absence of such evidence is that those associated with the adoption of the Second Amendment never even thought about the distinction between discriminatory and indiscriminate weapons.

I do like the idea. I think that the discriminatory/indiscriminate distinction that you're making has a lot of value, but not as a constitutional tool.

BTW, if anyone anyone charges you with being a strict constructionist, I'll be happy to defend you.

;-)

[Khepera]

lol

[Cultural Jihad]

Thanks for the post, Laz. Many excellent points were made. I would only comment that sometimes a statement is made which takes the opponent's argument to its logical conclusion rather than being a 'strawman' argument used to discredit offhandedly.

[inquest]

A four-alarm chili fart?

Weapon of mass destruction.