Posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz
“Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.”
Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate in nature. Therefore, you’re violating the 5th amendment rights of others “life, liberty and property” even by just possessing them. Example, if an accidental detonation or radiation leak where to occur, you would threaten the lives of thousands of people. The same holds true if one were to possess biological weapons. That’s where the individual safety right of others takes precedence over the 2nd amendment.
You do have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to own a weapon so powerful and indiscriminate that it’s mere possession threatens me and my family.
And of course if a nuke was used for self defense, you would vaporize all innocent people within a radius of several miles.
Guns on the other hand can be controlled by owner, and are not indiscriminate in nature.
Seriously, whole countries have bankrupted themselves trying to build one, and then found out that they have a short shelf life. The same thing with a howitzer. Every time you crank one off, there goes several thousand bucks, spiraling into the blue. It's odd that the shear staggering cost of operating one of these toys never seems to be mentioned.
Consider that an MG42 rips thru 1500 rounds a minute, at, say, $0.50 each, that's $750.00, plus the cost of a stellite lined barrel you just melted. Of course, to a Socialist, the mere sound of such a horror weapon would turn them all sickly and pale...
Neither weree ships of war and those could be privately owned as well.
I cannot imagine a private citizen owning an aircraft caarrier (too expensive), but I could see them running a cruiser / yacht armed with Aegis and torpedoes.
Shipping companies could hire it out as an escort through the straits of Malacca for really valuable cargoes.
The Federalist Papers are a good way to see what the founders were thinking about but the Constitution is the law of the land.
Machine guns and machine pistols are plenty discriminating, if used properly. Aimed, full-auto fire is not oxymoronic.
The same argument is used against so-called “assault weapons” by the antis. They rail against the “spray and pray” method, which can be exercised using semi- and full-auto arms alike.
The government doesn’t have to ban a nuclear device, they can ban the fuel for it though.
that's about where I'm at too ... I just cannot imagine someone owning a privately operated carrier. That would be cool but what a resource sink.
—and kidding aside, during the gulf war , I saw a CNN correspondent seriously speak of the potential for “nuclear hand grenades”—obviously, the concept of “blast radius” had not occurred to him-—
My personal opinion is that a shotgun is not much more discriminate than an assault rifle, which isn’t much more discriminate, when on full auto, as a submachine gun.
Who gets to draw the line of acceptability?
Also, I would argue that a submachine gun is less discriminate that a mounted machine gun.
Maybe the line should be drawn at whether there is residual damage after the defense of one’s self. Unfortunately, it could then be argued that if a gun does structural damage that could cause a structure to fall, it could be outlawed as well.
30 yards.
And, what's the blast radius again?
Initial blast radius is 75 miles.
The other thing I'd point out would be the risking of a catastrophe argument.
I think it is very wise for the state to prohibit someone from storing gasoline in milk jugs in the basement of his row home.
The same reasoning would apply to anthrax in his freezer, any radioactive material, or even a few hundred pounds of fireworks much less high explosive.
Kirk, however -- rutting every woman-shaped alien he encountered -- was completely indiscriminate, and would thusly be banned.
They need to be periodically taken apart and lubricated. The triggers and arming codes have to be separately stored and guarded.
Just too much hassle for your average blue collar guy.
As long as the government has access to weapons of mass destruction and normal people have NO, (not limited by price, knowledge, or maintenance), access to weapons of mass destruction, there is no defense against a rogue domestic government.
A man with a knife will, almost all the time, be defeated by a man with a machine gun. A man with a machine gun will, almost all the time, be defeated by a man with a tank.
If I have the price, knowledge, and maintenance ability to have my own nuclear weapon, without it being overtly dangerous in a resting phase to others, the fact that I may use it indiscriminately, against otherwise peaceful people, is not reason enough to preclude me from having it as a defense against a rogue domestic government.
Thanks. I’ve been in this argument at times and ended up defending the right to have everything, up to nuclear weapons, but I recongize a weak argument when I use one. This gives me excellent responses and a generally better position.
The one remailing question: what if it is necessary to oppose the government itself? Should not “we, the people” have access to adequate weaponry for that?
” our modern army the soldiers have to provide their own AA batteries”
To go in the hand-held game consol of his or her choice.
(Hasn’t been so long since I was a soldier that I forgot that 90% of what you kill is time.)
Your reasoning would prevent one from making reloads for guns. THat requires a fair amount of explosive, which if handled improperly could send schrapnel great distances, thus threatening a neighbor in a manner similar to a nuclear leak.
Because they interfere with my AWACS.
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.