Well that's nice and all, but we are talking about the Constitution. How is it constitutional to ban THAT particular property, yet unconstitutional to ban the other? Seems to me that you are saying that the USC is based on your rational. I would just like to see where it says that.
See Eagle Eye, we are talking about the 2nd. Are nukes included?
Yes, but not the batteries. ;^)
It seems to me that a nuke in private hands would be seen like a capital ship in private hands, namely as a pirate threat.
Privateers operated under the license and aegis of a State; privately owned nukes would come under the same constraints.
Aaarrr! There she be, my jolly boys!
If I say yes, then you are hysteric.
If I say no, then you say I'm a hypocrite.
I've said before that this is a question asked by fools who are not truly interested in freedom or the RKBA.
"Unlearned and foolish questions avoid..."
If one has the means to build and/or own a nuke, then neither you nor I will probably ever know about it until he uses it. Those that have the means to have one also have the means to remain undetected.
Between you and me, I don't give a damn what you own as long as you don't use it improperly.
You mentioned many posts ago that you were once a Libertarian primarily because you smoked dope. Now you transfer YOUR motivations for being a Libertarian onto others. You are not any different than the gun grabbing mommies who want to ban guns because THEY don't trust themselves with them.
Either you support maximum freedom for the most people or you don't.
Which party do you think gets the largest contributions from international criminal drug syndicates?
Be honest, and consider the 'interests' involved.
Admit that your RINO's and, indeed, other 'Pubbies and Demonrats, are much more likely than Libertarians to be funded by criminal interests.
And let's see if we can't keep on topic a little better in future.
And what the H*ll is with this quoting CJ now??? Are you losing it?
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then support the legal private ownership of nukes.
Sorry, but you will first have to explain your dementia on this subject, and its relationship to prohibitive unconstitutional state laws on guns, drugs or other mildly dangerous types of property that are constitutionally protected. [see the 9th].
The police power of the state is fully justified to write criminal law restricting private possession of virtually uncontrolable 'CBN' type weapons of mass destruction. -- This is a rational libertarian use of force, imo. - 118 - by tpaine
Well that's nice and all, but we are talking about the Constitution. How is it constitutional to ban THAT particular property, yet unconstitutional to ban the other?
You aren't paying attention. States can use their police power to write criminal law restricting criminal use of actual dangerous property. - Within constitutional bounds.
Guns, drugs, feelthy pics, nasty words, etc, -- Are NOT dangerous to all life in an area, -- as are CBN weaopons.
Seems to me that you are saying that the USC is based on your rational. I would just like to see where it says that.
Seems to me that you lack common sense on the subject.