Replies

A nuke shouldn't be.

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal? That almost every deployed US nuclear weapon was at one time privately owned?

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard. Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal?

Nice try, but that those are licensed contractors only. If you need a license it is not an unrestriced human right. I have a problem with explosives being handled by people who haven't even passed safety test. Much less bio and radiological weapons.

There are different levels of rights. Unrestricted rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I'm pro life because the right to life is clearly stated as being an unrestricted human right. Note that these right apply to all humans, as opposed to the next type of right.

There are rights of citizenship. Despite what the dem's appear to think the right to vote is a right of citizens only. The right to carry arms may be interpreted as this kind of right. Having a well ordered foreign militia on US soil doesn't seem like something the founding fathers would have considered a good idea.

The next level are no longer rights as such, but default privileges. Driving on a public road, piloting an aircraft, practicing medicine. You have to pass a test proving competency to get these privileges. Responsibility assumes competency. If you don't know how to fly a plane you can't go down to the airport and take off in an 747. It doesn't matter if you bought it and take personal responsibility for it. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing is a menace to everyone else, so it is a privilege not a right. As a practical matter firearms and explosives fall into this category today.

Finally there are restricted privileges. These are things that default to no. Radiologicals fall into this category today. You have to prove you need them or you are not permitted to have them.

By declaring weapons of all kinds to be an unrestricted human right Gingrich puts it into that first category.

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard.

Never dealt with the buggers have you. No radiological hazard as long as the casing is in place. A properly built nuke is without doubt the safest weapons system ever developed. In fact they are a heck of a lot safer than that .22LR. People get accidentally killed or injured by firearms all the time. There is almost no way to be accidentally injured by a nuke, short of dropping it on your foot. If you set one off it is usually because you intended to.

So answer the question does Mr Al Queda get to have his nukes or not? If not you are not looking at an unrestricted human right.