I wasn’t being sarcastic at all. If left to your own devices would you want to own a nuclear weapon? If not, why not that is your right isn’t it? As with everything in this life, there are limits. I tell my grandchild it’s ok to eat a habanero pepper but if he tries to eat many of them at once he will die.
I believe in owning weapons to enjoy for the obvious reasons as well as to protect ourselves. I also believe in owning a weapon that I can control without fear of someone taking it out of my hands and turning in on me or others.
If you care to, go ahead and educate me. What is liberal about mentioning bazooka or grenade launcher. They are weapons arent’t they? People want to own them don’t they? Dirty bombs are weapons, would you want someone to own one?
Where exactly IS the line?
I don’t pretend to know where “the line” is, but here’s my personal attempt to try to find “a line.”
First, a bit of background. The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms are at least partially to maintain “the security of a free state.” Therefore, whatever arms are required for the security of a free state are, in my opinion, justified. If personal possession of thermonuclear weapons were required to maintain
the security of a free state, then, yes, the second amendment would justify such personal ownership.
I do NOT believe that personal ownership of such weapons is required to maintain the security of a free state, BTW. I do not believe that personal possession or control of such weapons is justified by the Second Amendment. Just pointing out that it’s not the weapon itself that is on one side or another of “the line.” It is the need for the weapon that puts the weapon on one side or another of “the line.”
Perhaps a better way to define “the line” might be, not with reference to individual weapons or weapon type, but with reference to what is needed to maintain the security of a free state. As a guide, perhaps we might look at how THE STATE (free or unfree) defines what is needed for the security of THE STATE. Note that I have capitalized THE STATE here, to differentiate the real STATE from the more abstract “free state” discussed in the Constitution.
THE STATE has decided that it’s security requires it’s members to have personal ready access to handguns and fully automatic weapons. The judgement that security of THE STATE requires such measures is a pretty good indication that “the security of a free state” requires that the members of the “free state” also have such access.
THE STATE has decided that it’s security requires it’s members to have controlled, but available, access to armed vessels, such as tanks and armed ships. Again, if such access is required for the security of THE STATE, then it’s also likely to be required for “the security of a free state.” In fact, contracting with the individual owners of such armed vessels is specifically contemplated in the constitution, in the section on letters of marque and reprisal.
As for nuclear weapons? Even THE STATE has very, very tight controls on their use ... so tight that nuclear weapons have never been used (other than in testing) in almost three quarters of a century, and even then only in a most dire circumstance. THE STATE agents emphatically do NOT have personal possession nor control of nuclear weapons. If such tight control could be replicated by some element of the nation, even if not THE STATE, then I would have no more problem with that element maintaining nuclear weapons than I do with THE STATE maintaining nuclear weapons.
Well, that’s my attempt to find “a line” to allow or restrict the ownership of, and access to, weapons. I look forward to any responses.