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]

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!!!!

[sneakypete]

"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.

[sneakypete]

"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".

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

"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.

[Lazamataz]

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 NFA would be repealed, as well as GCA, '86 manufacturing ban, and the AW ban.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.

[Cool Guy]

I kinda right now side with havegunwilltravel, in this argument.

[Cool Guy]

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?

[Mark17]

Then who can own nuclear bombs?

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

[sneakypete]

"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!

[Cool Guy]

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.

[sneakypete]

"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.

[Bandolier]

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.

[Eagle Eye]

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.

[Cool Guy]

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.

[sneakypete]

"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.

[Lazamataz]

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

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

[HaveGunWillTravel]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.