How to shut down the liberals "2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes" argument

[ctdonath]

The limit on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment.
You have a right to keep and bear arms. So does everyone else, and if you threaten them, they have every right to stop & disarm you.
Nukes included.
The catch is, just having a nuke threatens everyone for miles around.
Do the math.

Jeff Cooper, a very wise man on related subjects, wrote a list of rules that brilliantly cover the issue of “safety”. Part of their brillinace is that violations of one rule are mitigated by the others being held; it takes the express effort of violating two or more rules to actually induce risk. I’ll extrapolate them to cover the question.
(Apologies to Jeff Cooper)

Rule #1: All weapons are in their most dangerous condition.
Rule #2: Never “point” (however that applies) the weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Rule #3: Keep your finger off the activator until the target is in range.
Rule #4: Know what else will be affected besides just the target.

Now, regarding the nuke in your basement...

1. It’s a weapon. It’s not “safe”. Just sitting there, your nuke is a radiation hazard.
2. It is “pointed” at everybody and everything within a ~1 mile radius, most/all of which you are not willing to destroy.
3. Even if you don’t touch it, it is subject to dangerous deterioration demanding skilled maintenance; even without detonation a “minor” storage problem could render the neighborhood uninhabitable for thousands of years.
4. You can’t convince anyone that your target is legitimately everyone/thing within the 1 mile blast radius, 10 mile damage radius, and 100 mile downwind fallout zone.

Just by having that thing sitting in your basement, you’re VIOLATING EVERY STANDARD SAFETY RULE. That indeed “affects the life, liberty, safety and property” of every person in the effects zone, covering hundreds of square miles. This is unlike conventional arms, whereby the worst case of accidental activation in “safe storage” is most likely completely harmless (even MOAB can be stored safely, albeit in a large, empty, secured area; there is no downwind fallout effects).

The problem with WMDs is their area of effect is so wide, and that downwind effects can easily take that damage so far, that you must presume that most effects will be suffered by non-targeted people. Those people, far outnumbering you, can recognize that threat and have the right to do something about it.

 

[ilbob]

There are a couple of things that come to mind.

There is the argument that nukes cost so much that the average Joe could not afford them, thus few people would have them. This is a completely unsatisfying argument to me since those few people would have a great deal of power at hand, due solely to their financial capacity to purchase something very expensive. I also don't like this argument since there is no guarantee that the cost factor will continue forever. Except for the fissionable materials, the raw materials to make a nuke are only a few thousand dollars, maybe less. If someone finds a way to get the fissionable materials economically, the whole basis of this line of logic goes out the door.

The cost argument does not address other issues. Commercial C4 is about $10 a pound IIRC. You could make a pretty decent little bomb out of $1000 worth of C4. Should anyone be able to have C4 in unlimited quantities?

Philosophically, I like the idea that the 2A applies to common militia usable weapons that are man portable. That covers knives, swords, and firearms, which is what most of us think of when we think of the 2A (most people only really think about firearms, but I added in the knives and swords part because I always think of swords as arms when I consider the 2A since that was a very common militia weapon of the time). But a man could easily carry a 50 pound C4 bomb, and there is absolutely no question that C4 is militarily useful. And as another poster mentioned, both the US and the Soviet Union apparently manufactured small nukes that were more or less man portable. So the portability argument seems like maybe it has the same problem as the cost argument.

What happens 20 years from now when I invent the the phase pistol? It will be man portable and have multiple settings from stun all the way up to 1 kton blast available, powered by a miniature fusion reactor. Setting 1 will be stun, and setting 11 will be 1 kton. What settings should average Joe be allowed to have under the 2A?

BTW, I will be taking deposits for these arms. I anticipate the final cost will be 3-5 ounces of gold, but the price is not guaranteed, nor is the delivery date. Send me one ounce as a deposit and you will get on the waiting list to purchase a phase pistol when they become available, and your deposit will be applied to the purchase price.

In the end you are left with the unsatisfying thought that maybe there has to be some inherent limitation on the 2A, with no idea how that limit should be defined.

 

[lance22]

You mean I'm finally going to get to nuke the whales? They've been waiting for us to die off so that they can return to the land. I don't have proof but I believe they are meddling in international politics.

 

[ilbob]

The right to own implies the right to use

perhaps, but not the right to own or use in a way that harms others.

It is almost impossible to use a nuke without adversely affecting the rights of others

Nukes could be quite useful for certain types of operations (such as removing mountains) and could certainly be constructed and used in a way that did not harm anyone outside the immediate blast area. The US invented the neutron bomb that had very little in the way of long term radiation problems.

 

[Zundfolge]

If they resort to that argument you will realize that you are arguing with a juvenile mentality and will have to adjust your argument accordingly

It doesn't matter how juvenile their mentality is, they are still successful in pushing their beliefs into laws that you and I have to follow.

My point in bringing that up is that hopefully someone will come along and show us how to adjust our argument to defeat that idiocy.

However to be honest the more I argue politics on the net, the more I watch our media, the more I listen to Democrat politicians, the LESS I believe that the differences between various segments of American society are going to be decided by peaceful means so trying to figure out an effective rhetorical device is a waste of time

 

[sacp81170a]

perhaps, but not the right to own or use in a way that harms others.

So let's just say that you didn't want a nuclear weapon, you just want to make pistol bullets out of plutonium. You know, it's dense, good ballistic coefficient, etc. Would it be logical to say that there is no way that you could walk around with plutonium bullets in your pistol in such a way that others around were not endangered? That's what we're talking about here.

 

[ilcylic]

I sure hope civilian possession of nuclear powered explosives is someday as common as civilian possession of steam shovels, 'cause they'd be a great way to mine and move asteroids.

 

[ilbob]

So let's just say that you didn't want a nuclear weapon, you just want to make pistol bullets out of plutonium. You know, it's dense, good ballistic coefficient, etc. Would it be logical to say that there is no way that you could walk around with plutonium bullets in your pistol in such a way that others around were not endangered? That's what we're talking about here.

Plutonium would be a poor choice as a bullet due to its physical characteristics, even as dense as it is.

It is toxic, but so is rat poison, and we put that in toothpaste.

It is also radioactive, but the alpha particles it emits are easily shielded. certainly the pistol itself would be adequate to shield others from the radiation.

I would argue that merely walking around with it would not harm anyone else. Actually using it could harm someone unintentionally, as it might spread some toxic chemicals about just from the act of shooting it. I suspect a bullet made of plutonium might well disintegrate when fired.

 

[sacp81170a]

It is also radioactive, but the alpha particles it emits are easily shielded. certainly the pistol itself would be adequate to shield others from the radiation.

It is toxic, but so is rat poison, and we put that in toothpaste.

If that's all you know about the toxicity of plutonium, I rest my case.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Not to mention the term "depleted" uranium is a joke.

 

[ilbob]

It is toxic, but so is rat poison, and we put that in toothpaste.

If that's all you know about the toxicity of plutonium, I rest my case.

I was not equating the relative levels of toxicity, only pointing out that mere toxicity does not appear to be a good reason to ban the personal use or possession of a substance.

In fact, plutonium is not much more toxic than lead if ingested, and it appears that ingestion of plutonium would be not much worse immediately than ingestion of lead, as neither substance is well absorbed by the digestive system. I am not by any means suggesting it is safe to eat plutonium, as what little plutonium was absorbed could well sit in your system for many years and result in some kind of cancer down the road.

It is however, a serious problem if you inhale even a very small amount (like an amount you might not even be able to see with the naked eye), as even very small amounts can substantially increase the risk of lung cancer.

 

[joab]

My point in bringing that up is that hopefully someone will come along and show us how to adjust our argument to defeat that idiocy.

That was addressed
There is no constitutional right to feel safe

The mere possession of and responsible use of a firearm in no way creates and real danger to anyone
The mere possession of, and certainly the use of, a nuclear device does create a very real and imminent danger to others

It doesn't matter how juvenile their mentality is, they are still successful in pushing their beliefs into laws that you and I have to follow.

That is not the topic of this discussion
I have never seen any of those laws try to equate firearm ownership with WMD ownership as it applies to the second amendment

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hey, guys, the precursory materials that make an atom bomb what it is can be controlled. If Uncle Sam owns all the fissile material, you could build all the nukes you wanted - minus the fissile materials, of course. That said, storing the fissile material can be accomplished where it's no threat to anyone. Our government does it all the time! I've got some on my hip right now in the form of tritium night sights.

A lot of airplanes use depleted uranium to make counterweights for control surfaces. Our government makes projectiles out of the stuff. I wouldn't screw around with plutonium bullets, though. Get too many of them in one place and you could end up with a critical mass. Talk about cooking off rounds...

I don't much care how you "control" your nukes, just don't ever deny that your right to them exists; and never even pretend you can divest yourself of that right.

It's like criminals. You can't control their behavior beyond prison walls or the grave. Keep criminals locked up same as you would keep your nukes locked up. Criminals have caused more death and destruction than all the nukes that have ever been loosed.

Woody

We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood

 

[sacp81170a]

In fact, plutonium is not much more toxic than lead if ingested, and it appears that ingestion of plutonium would be not much worse immediately than ingestion of lead, as neither substance is well absorbed by the digestive system.

That is correct. However, plutonium oxidizes in the presence of moisture to plutonium hydride, a compound that is extremely pyrophoric. Ya gotta have a specialized facility to handle it. It's when it catches fire that it spreads the radioactive contamination over a wide area. That contamination is where the problem lies.

 

[Professor K]

Well, why would a law matter if you had a nuke? It's not like someone intent on doing something bad with a nuke will go "OH NO I CANT USE IT CUZ THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT ALLOW ME TO."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Well, why would a law matter if you had a nuke? It's not like someone intent on doing something bad with a nuke will go "OH NO I CANT USE IT CUZ THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT ALLOW ME TO."

Put that logic to work on the NICS. See the fallacy therein?

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[sacp81170a]

To get back to OP's question, it's not that the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes, it's the fundamental rights of others that would be violated by the possession of hazardous nuclear material that all nukes are made of.

There is a qualitative difference, one that does not involve whether or not the article we're speaking of is an arm defended by the 2nd. A pistol made of plutonium would be as hazardous as a peace symbol made of plutonium. If your car emitted highly toxic gas that killed as quickly as nerve agents when it burned whatever fuel it used, laws should be passed to prevent your use or possession of that car and that fuel. It has nothing to do with weapons.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is a qualitative difference, one that does not involve whether or not the article we're speaking of is an arm defended by the 2nd. A pistol made of plutonium would be as hazardous as a peace symbol made of plutonium. If your car emitted highly toxic gas that killed as quickly as nerve agents when it burned whatever fuel it used, laws should be passed to prevent your use or possession of that car and that fuel. It has nothing to do with weapons.

This is what I'm talking about. It's the material they are made out of(consume) that can be controlled. You could still have and use that car but with a different fuel. There would be a time and place for that toxic fuel, though - like infiltrating your enemy's lines and filling their fuel tanks with the stuff. There goes their motor pool, flight line, harbor, etc., etc.

Woody

 

[physics]

I personally think it would be cool to give worldwide nuke demonstrations. Designate a certain spot in the world, and every week we can detonate a nuke on global tv. That should satisfy the desire for anyone to have a nuke, and plus, it would give all us bored physicists something to do!

I personally would select Iran as the nuke spot, that way, everyone in the Middle East would get to see a mushroom cloud, once a week, and thus their thirst for chaos could be met.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

My God.


Did this post really stir up that many people?

 

[James T Thomas]

shut down and reboot

Just remember; about "liberals."

You may shut them down with logic, but they never respond to logic in the first place.

And very few of them change their minds when facing the facts.

Eternal vigilence is the price to pay.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Good point, James. It's like criminals: You may control their behavior in prison, but they never respect the law. Very few of them see the error of their ways even when facing imprisonment.

Woody

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Any one tried to bear a nuke? I think it would crush you

...and then there's that whole negligent discharge thing...

 

[TBeck]

have no problem with nuke ownership
However the possession of any nuclear material that would go into that device should be heavily regulated, because the mere ownership of that material poses a significant threat to others

Oh, sure, tax the ammo...

Seriously, guys. There is a decent chance that the Supremes may rule by mid-2008 on whether the 2nd is an individual right and if so, what "reasonable restrictions" apply.

Assuming we win the individual right part, the next step will be horsetrading over the "reasonable restrictions" part. And I guarantee they will place restrictions on it. So, let's start polishing our arguments without resorting to debating whether nook-you-lar weapons are covered. Because that, my friends, is called a diversion. If they can get you on a tangent trying to explain how and why Joe Sixpack can have a MIRV in his shed then you've lost the debate already.

 

[ctdonath]

...and then there's that whole negligent discharge thing...

Which gets back to the point I was trying to make.

When/if the thing "goes off", who is affected?
Do they have the right to pre-emptively stop & disarm you of such a weapon?

Guns do not inherently warrant pre-emptive defense. All my guns could go off right now, and nobody would be hurt - either because they're pointed in a safe direction, or in a container that will contain the effects.
Bombs (grenades, C4) can be handled to not warrant pre-emptive defense. Stored in a container to contain any blast effects, or stored far enough from anyone, if it goes off it's still pretty much harmless.
WMDs, however, inherently place everyone nearby at risk - even when just sitting there. Your basement cannot contain the effects of a nuke AD.

Likewise with "use".
I can use a gun in a manner whereby the only person affected warrants the effect.
I can use a grenade in a manner whereby, in all reasonable likelyhood, the only people affected are legitimate targets.
WMDs, however, are indiscriminate across vast swaths, most likely killing & harming a great many people who there is no reason to harm whatsoever.

Now,
IF, under great care and expense and provability, you can store and use a WMD properly, the 2nd Amendment applies.
HOWEVER, it's awfully easy to store/use the durn thing in a manner which gives a lot of people lots of reason to do you lots of harm.

It's the effects that count, threatened and actual, giving other people justification to use their 2nd Amendment right against you.