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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 04/18/2002 8:59:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 last
To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

151 posted on 04/30/2002 8:43:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

RKBA and Nuclear Weapons

A common argument in the gun control vs. gun rights controversy is the question of whether a private citizen has the right to own nuclear weapons.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" - basically Congress may give permission to private citizens to go attack foreign ships & countries (presumably for retaking stolen property, retribution, etc.). Such permission presumes that said citizens either already have or may obtain battleships and other maximum-firepower weapons. Nothing is said about granting permission to own such weapons, only to use them outside US borders, indicating that the 2nd Amendment fully applies to the biggest weapons available at the time. Today, that would by extension include aircraft carriers, B2 bombers, and nukes.

Don't react to that yet. Keep reading.

Cooper's Four Rules defines minimal yet complete and redundant rules for handling guns, and by extrapolation, other weapons. You have the right to own and carry a gun, but if you break those rules and thus create a dangerous situation, others (including by incorporation the government) have the right to disarm you in the interest of their own personal safety - you have the right to own a gun, but if you point it at me without proper cause, I have the right to disarm you with deadly force. While one has the Constitutional right to own a nuke, I contend that it is nearly impossible to "keep" one (much less "bear") without inherently violating a nuke version of Cooper's Four Rules, and thus other citizens (acting alone or as an incorporated government) have the right to disarm anyone of their personal nuke - you have the right to own a nuke, but I have the right to disarm you of it via deadly force if you bring it within range of me, just as I have the right to disarm you of a rifle if you point it at me (even if it is unloaded).

You have the 2nd Amendment Constitutional right to own a nuke - but if you bring it in range of ANYONE innocent, even if it is disarmed, you can be legally and righteously terminated.


Constitution for the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.
...
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
...
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


Webster Dictionary, 1913

Marque (Page: 897)
Marque (?), n. [F. marque, in lettre de marque letter of marque, a commission with which the commandant of every armed vessel was obliged to be provided, under penalty of being considered a pirate or corsair; marque here prob. meaning, border, boundary (the letter of marque being a permission to go beyond the border), and of German origin. See March border.] (Law) A license to pass the limits of a jurisdiction, or boundary of a country, for the purpose of making reprisals. Letters of marque, Letters of marque and reprisal, a license or extraordinary commission granted by a government to a private person to fit out a privateer or armed ship to cruise at sea and make prize of the enemy's ships and merchandise. The ship so commissioned is sometimes called a letter of marque.


152 posted on 04/30/2002 8:50:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Nice job. You do that? We can work our arguments together to cover any areas I missed.
153 posted on 04/30/2002 8:52:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Yup, that's mine. The core point is a proper understanding of Cooper's Four Rules: violate a rule, and others (individuals and gov't) have the right to force you to stop violating that rule.

Nukes, with their large volumetric effect, inherently cause the posessor to violate Rule #1 on a large scale with few exceptions. One may Constitutionally posess a gun, yet that gun may be Constitutionally confiscated if the posessor is indiscriminately pointing it at innocents; likewise, one may Constitutionally posess a nuke, yet that nuke may be Constitutionally confiscated if the posessor is indiscriminately "pointing" it at innocents, which is awfully hard to not do - so inherently hard to not do that the gov't may immediately disarm a posessor of a nuke, just as the gov't may immediately disarm a nutcase waving a gun around in a crowded mall ('tis Constitutional to immediately act to protect society at large in some dangerous cases).

154 posted on 04/30/2002 10:04:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

155 posted on 05/01/2002 8:31:33 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

156 posted on 05/03/2002 9:00:40 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

157 posted on 05/07/2002 8:32:05 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
I have concluded you will not be returning to the forum. I declare a win by default, since you are a no-show.
158 posted on 05/10/2002 10:26:54 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

159 posted on 06/12/2002 3:24:01 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

160 posted on 06/19/2002 11:42:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

But because you are intellectually dishonest, you will flee from this debate. :o) BWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

161 posted on 06/19/2002 3:13:51 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat
"A better argument would be that even though it is constitutional to own such weapons,"

Sorry,can't agree with that. The MAIN purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure the country would have a ready-armed and trained militia to defend her in time of war. This mean the militiaman/draftee is expected to show up with appropiate weapons of the common infantry soldier. This does not include "crew-served weapons". Please note that while people are and were free to own ships,the gooberment has the right to commander the ships and crew in time of war. While it is true that owning such weapons may not be a INDIVIDUAL right,there is nothing saying owning them isn't a community right. Groups of people certainly had the clear right to band together and buy cannons,ships with cannons,etc,etc,etc.

Other than that,I agree with your post.
162 posted on 06/19/2002 3:57:53 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"Therefore -- since these two weapons lack human intervention -- discrimination is impossible and they fall into the final catagory of weaponry."

Not true. They can be "command detonated".
163 posted on 06/19/2002 3:59:27 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
BTW,machine guns,machine pistols,anti-tank rockets,and satchel charges ARE the very weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees ownership of by the common man. The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting or target shooting. You might want to redo your list and put things like benchrest rifles,skeet and trap guns,and target pistols in the "questionable catagory.
164 posted on 06/19/2002 4:03:36 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HaveGunWillTravel
"As far as I am concerned, I can own nuclear weapons."

No,you're not. This is due to their unique dangerous nature. They can leak radiation if not properly maintained,for one example. You don't have the right to poison the atsmophere and water of your neighbor.
165 posted on 06/19/2002 4:06:53 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
If you read the rest of my thread, you'll see that weapons in this questionable category would require a Brady-style check. NFA would be repealed, as well as GCA, '86 manufacturing ban, and the AW ban.

We'd need to make sure you weren't an idiot, and off you'd go with your M249 .223 SAW.

166 posted on 06/19/2002 4:09:00 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I kinda right now side with havegunwilltravel, in this argument.
167 posted on 06/19/2002 4:14:48 PM PDT by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
They can leak radiation if not properly maintained,for one example. You don't have the right to poison the atsmophere and water of your neighbor.

Then who can own nuclear bombs?

168 posted on 06/19/2002 4:15:43 PM PDT by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Cool Guy
Then who can own nuclear bombs?

The government. Only they can poison and kill people and get away with it.

169 posted on 06/19/2002 4:17:57 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"We'd need to make sure you weren't an idiot, and off you'd go with your M249 .223 SAW."

Admit it. You just don't want me to have any fun!
170 posted on 06/19/2002 4:20:31 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
Exaclty. If that is the argument, then the government cannot own it either. I trust the government as far as I can throw a whale.
171 posted on 06/19/2002 4:20:35 PM PDT by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Cool Guy
"Then who can own nuclear bombs?"

Governments,and it's not so much a question of "can" as it is "who can stop them?".

And for those of you who are dogmatic,please note that in a Constitutional Republic like ours,the gooberment is SUPPOSED to be the "people",and they "own" the nukes in OUR name. Even Bubba-1 couldn't have gotten away with shoplifting one to take home.
172 posted on 06/19/2002 4:25:10 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It is not illegal, under federal law, to own a nuclear weapon. Obtaining one might be difficult, and a bit pricey; but if you can get one it is legal to own, as far as I can find in the United States Code.
173 posted on 06/19/2002 4:26:41 PM PDT by Bandolier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Guy
So what would prevent Ross Perot or Bill Gates from owning a nuke? Obviously I don't have the money to design, build or maintain one properly, but those gents might.

As far as poisoning the environment, it seems that we have plenty of corportate entities that manage to that quite well as it is.

174 posted on 06/19/2002 4:27:48 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
The main argument I have seen for bearing arms is it serves as a deterrent against tyranny. IF that is the case, if the govt can own one, then I should too.
175 posted on 06/19/2002 4:29:32 PM PDT by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Cool Guy
"The main argument I have seen for bearing arms is it serves as a deterrent against tyranny."

That and self-defense against attack by criminals ARE the resason the 2nd Amendment exists. This doesn't apply to nukes,though. They are a weapon that is on a "government to government" scale,and this has nothing to do with individual self-defense. Besides,you DO "own" them already. You own them because the gooberment owns and would use them in your name. Like I wrote earlier,nukes are in a special catagory because of the special risks involved with owning or possessing them. Your M-2,BAR,or M-16 isn't going to endanger any of your neighbors by merely being stored and ignored. You can't say this for nukes.

176 posted on 06/19/2002 5:40:45 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Intellectually Dishonest Non-Libertarian, I am awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

177 posted on 06/20/2002 5:59:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
This is due to their unique dangerous nature. They can leak radiation if not properly maintained,for one example. You don't have the right to poison the atsmophere and water of your neighbor.

I agree with the above. How about this: In principle, to the extent that any man has the right to own nuclear weapons, I also have that right. No man is my master.

178 posted on 06/24/2002 11:50:02 AM PDT by HaveGunWillTravel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: HaveGunWillTravel
How about this: In principle, to the extent that any man has the right to own nuclear weapons, I also have that right.

Sure,why not? I have no idea why you want to insist on making a issue out of this,though. The easiest way to express this is "No individual has the right to own nuclear weapons."

No man is my master.

We all have masters. They may be different masters,and even different forms of masters at different points in our lives,but "No man is a island". If you have a conscience,you have a master. If you are religious,God is your master. In a very real sense,if you have children or other loved ones who are dependent on you,you have a master or masters.

179 posted on 06/24/2002 7:14:07 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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