Posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!
This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.
The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:
And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:
And from John Adams:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons?
Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.
THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE
If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:
THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED
Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.
Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.
Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:
The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:
The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and can harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.
Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.
Bump
Rudy 2008!!!
I guess, under the right set of circumstances (like an unlimited budget and the property and facilities to house them), you might should be constitutionally allowed to onw Nuclear weapons...
But the circumstances would be pretty restricted -
LOTS OF MONEY - because nuclear weapons require a great deal of maintenance just to be safe to store.
You would have to have the knowledge of how to keep them safe from others who would like to steal and misuse your nukes.
You would need plenty of property (as in square miles) to store them.
Facilities - imagine the necessary facilities...
But as a technicality, you shouldn’t constitutionally be barred from owning such weapons....
But it certainly wouldn’t be very practical...
I wish I had read yur post before I posted my own (56).
Trouble is, once we are into WMDs I can see both sides. There are too many folk I’d rather not see with access to them.
I thought he was ordered by SFC to track and number his bowel movements.
You know, if you mounted 6 Davey’s on the ONTOS instead of those wimpy recoilless, you’d actually have something.
In seriousness, I forsee our carrier groups being destroyed by the modern equivalent to a Davey Crocket. They (and the Lancer, even more so) created such a rolling shock wave any surface ship would be destroyed.
Why bother with all this fancy-dancy supersonic, duck-and-weave business that the new Russian missles do.
Just have a small nuclear cruise missle come in low, fast, and blow up 1/2 mile from the target.
SFC: Special Fecal Containment division.
Think about a mosque in “Dearbornistan,” Michigan
Sure. If you live above the tree line. But if you choose to live among others in a society, then society decides which weapons, if any, you may use to defend yourself and under what conditions you may use them.
As to the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, the answer is simple -- whatever your state deems necessary to form a well regulated Militia.
Here come the helicopter — second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How many kids they’ve murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher...I’d make somebody pay.
I don’t believe in guarded borders and I don’t believe in hate
I don’t believe in generals or their stinking torture states
And when I talk with the survivors of things too sickening to relate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would retaliate
On the Rio Lacantun one hundred thousand wait
To fall down from starvation — or some less humane fate.
Cry for Guatemala, with a corpse in every gate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would not hesitate
I want to raise every voice — at least I’ve got to try.
Every time I think about it water rises to my eyes.
Situation desperate echoes of the victims cry
If I had a rocket launcher...some sonofabitch would die
I guess we’ll never know the official answer. LOL
Yes, yes, we're already quite aware that you love The State and hate the rights of the individual, and that your only concern every day is how the National Government can more efficiently and effectively control us.
It's actually a little tiresome to hear you chime in with your 'Ein Reich -- Ein Fuhrer' chants.
Just a personal opinion, but one I believe would be soundly Constitutional... is the arm tactical or strategic? If it’s T then it’s protected if it’s S than it’s not. As in:
Grenade yes, Nuke no
Small Ship yes, Fleet no
Plane yes, Air Force no
After all, it is an individual protection not a strategic or military protection.
jw
Godwin’s Law — and only 73 posts.
Agreed and while some may argue that nukes could not have been anticipated by the founders, I'd argue that they also didn't anticipate radio, television or the internet. Should these be exempt from the first amendment? Of course not. The Constitution says what it says. If people want to exempt nukes, there's a perscribed way to do that... through the amendment process. I expect most people might vote for that amendment.
While actually using a nuclear weapon would not be permitted, there is a difference between possessing and using, isn’t there?
I would be interested in your discussion of the words “bear arms” in this context. The verb “bear” seems the word least scrutinized in 2nd amendment discussions. “Keep”, “shall not be infringed” get discussed all the time.
The current definition seems to be that to “bear” something indicates that it can be carried or conveyed.
You are so law-and-order-triumphs-over-peoples-rights, you'd have likely cast a vote for Hitler as Chancellor.
You know I'm right.
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.