[Lazamataz]

In no way have I said that my rights trump others, that argument is a red herring

Then, since nuclear weapons are indiscriminatory, and since you invariably will violate an innocent parties right of quiet enjoyment should you detonate a nuclear weapon, then you will be forced to concede that your possession and use of a nuclear weapon is likely to violate anothers rights. And since you clearly infer you believe your rights do not trump anothers, I expect you would understand and agree with the discrimination test.

[ghostcat]

"And since you clearly infer you believe your rights do not trump anothers, I expect you would understand and agree with the discrimination test."

I do not automatically have to agree with the discrimination test, that is a false choice, it is not an either or arguement. I believe that the standard was set a long time ago, and that standard is was the USE reasonable, not wheter the ownership is resonable.

[Rodney King]

Good post Laz.

[teeman8r]

i believe a government that will use nukes to oppress its citizens, disobeying rules of discrimination set forth previously, may need to be taken out with or threatened by another faction, who has obtained the necessary "arms" to bring this about. the second amendment was written to ensure that the populace could defend itself from tyranny, if tyrants possess nukes, should they be banned from those opposing the tyrants... when you outlaw nukes, only criminals will own them.

the discussion of nukes in the hands of people is a straw argument....