Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.
Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).
More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.
Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.
Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.
Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.
That's not self defense?I am not interested in this conversation. Since I believe the 2A is to protect citizens from tyranny,
and it's clear *to me* in the amendment itself, I have no trouble with a premise of liberty.
People have sacrificed personal safety (giving up a right to self-defense) for liberty (for themselves, for others) all thru history, so I have no problem seeing a clear distinction.
its undebatable that the second amendment was intended by the founders not to CREATE right but merely to recognize a right that the founders believed free citizens had since the dawn of time. What is the right you think the second amendment sought to guarantee-a natural right that the founders believed man was endowed with by the creator?
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage.
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage.
Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm
I am not interested in this conversation. Since I believe the 2A is to protect citizens from tyranny, and it's clear *to me* in the amendment itself, I have no trouble with a premise of liberty.
Plus to add, no one person has complete control over a nuke. Even the president himself has certain protocal and people to launch one. I advocate that the second amendment covers anything the average soldier has access to without special security clearance.
Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.
Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).
More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.
Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.
Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.
Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.
well I hate to play devil's advocate but unless the federal government has a proper power to ban you from owning such things, we are left with a tenth amendment issue, even though I agree that the second amendment (which was designed, first and foremost, to guarantee the individual right of self defense) does not involve indiscriminate strategic weapons or weapons designed to destroy cities, fortresses, ships, planes or something bigger than several attacking individuals
The 2nd was meant as a replacement for a standing army and since we have that army now it is really no longer valid.
I advocate that the second amendment covers anything the average soldier has access to without special security clearance.
there is really nothing to debate in your opening thread
Sometimes people try to argue that if the Second Amendment is an unlimited right (not so, no right is unlimited, but that's another discussion), why does it not include privately owned nuclear weapons. This is not a very good argument; the following exposition should explain why.
A nuke is a strategic weapons system, not an "arm". It is an area-effect weapon; it cannot be used for precision targeting of one individual (unless said individual lives alone in Antarctica). It cannot be employed at all without massive collateral damage. Its utility for use by a lawful citizen for lawful purposes is effectively nil. It cannot be safely stored except with 24/7 security and needs to be maintained and monitored by experts to remain safe and useable.
Furthermore, even if used "correctly", it is almost impossible for a nuke to be detonated without effects that can cause inter-state or international concerns (ie radiation, fallout, electromagnetic pulse, ecological impact, etc).
More to the point, restricting nukes is clearly within the purview of Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. SCS is the view that restrictions on a major (enumerated) right must be necessary to society (not merely preferred or desirable), narrowly construed, and the least restrictive means available of achieving the necessary goal.
Clearly, if everybody and his brother owned a nuke, we would not have a society for long, but rather a nation covered in mushroom clouds and ruins. That certainly covers the "necessary" clause of Strict Scrutiny.
Poison gas, bio-weapons and other WMD are also not Second Amendment issues for similar reasons.
Know the issues on which you wish to debate, and you will make better arguments.
Supreme Court and half the country disagrees.
Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”
I don't care about half the country. I have realized we live in a nation of idiots. More Americans believe in Bigfoot sightings, UFO abductions and séances with the dead than in basic evolutionary biology and climate change science. You can't expect too much from such an ignorant, backward populace. That's why they are so easily manipulable by everyone from NRA gun manufacturers and the Koch brothers to Vladimir Putin.
And you are wrong about the supreme court. I will let Justice Scalia explain why in his opinion on Heller:
Supreme Court and half the country disagrees.
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.
Think about what a deterrent to potential government tyranny it would be if every American had a nuclear-tipped ICBM with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed on it. If government does decide to get tyrannical on you, your little shotguns and semiautomatics are not going to do diddly. I am not sure why patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like the folks here are trying to argue against such a potent deterrent.
It does not matter what it says then does it? The SC voted to allow gun manufacturers to sell as many guns as they can. That is the truth of the matter. It really has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is a lie.
Think about what a deterrent to potential government tyranny it would be if every American had a nuclear-tipped ICBM with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed on it. If government does decide to get tyrannical on you, your little shotguns and semiautomatics are not going to do diddly. I am not sure why patriotic, freedom-loving Americans like the folks here are trying to argue against such a potent deterrent.
.....Why would Americans need weapons so dangerous to themselves, heavy, impossible to manage, radioactive and capable of irradiating vast expanses of our country? When we have many other means of striking back and going on the offensive?
Not too familiar with that subject eh?
Ridiculous.
Literally all of that is irrelevant. Your "cannot be used for precision targeting," requirement would already push automatic weapons off of the second amendment. For automatic firearms, collateral damage is a feature rather than a bug.
And this portion effectively acknowledges that gun control is required to accommodate SCS. Basically, there is nothing specific in here actually explaining why nukes are included but grenade launchers or machine guns are not.
Furthermore, "a nuclear armed society is a polite society," "good guy with a nuke," blah blah. This argument really just debunks a whole bunch of miserable anti gun control arguments and doesn't outline a precise line for where restrictions should stop.
The 2nd was meant as a replacement for a standing army and since we have that army now it is really no longer valid.
you really shouldn't debate either me or Goshin on gun issues that is one of the most stupid replies I have seen
What exactly does this empower the government to ban?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?