Yes, Nukes

[mzmadmike]

My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.

"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not

Comments

[lonewolf545]

My response to the nuke strawman is "OK, we've found a type of armament that most people would agree are not appropriate for civilian ownership, and many people don't even want owned by the government. The Constitution has a mechanism to deal with this, it should be relatively easy to pass an amendment restricting the private ownership of nuclear weapons, why don't you contact your Congressman and ask that they introduce one?"

[jordan179]

There was a time in America when a private citizen could, if he wanted, purchase a ship and mount heavy artillery on it. In fact, this was perfectly legal into the early 20th century.

Did this time see numerous instances when people fitted out private warships and attacked their innocent fellows, perhaps whimsically-bombarding random houses and even ports they didn't like? Was it then necessary to ban private warship ownership, for that reason?

As a matter of fact, no. This is because firing one's artillery at other people or their property save in military operations or self-defense was ILLEGAL. As it pretty much always was since the invention of artillery in Hellenistic Greece.

If nuclear weapons were legal for private citizens to own, it would be illegal to use them save under very limited circumstances. Given the cost of their purchase and maintenance, coupled with their limited utility, very few private citizens would ever purchase such weapons.

So yes, this is a red herring.

[_eljefe_]

Chico, CA is already ahead of the curve.

No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system under penalty of Chapter 9.60.030

I believe there is a $500 fine if you do.

[septithol]

Hmm, it isn't quite clear to me Mike, whether you actually support being able to own a nuke, or whether you are simply talking about the 'owning nukes is not reasonable' argument being a red herring