Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you can find a reference to nuclear arms in the Constitution, that'll be a first. The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear arms except for big ones".

You're just so anxious to get folks out on that slippery slope...

No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.

If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.

That's wishful thinking. I'd say it's not the case that "pretty much everybody" shares your ideas of the proper role of government and law.

As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view. (You know, the one that "pretty much everybody" shares.)

Now I know for certain that there are lower statutes and case law that contravene that point of view. U.S v. Miller is probably the most prominent example, although most folks don't understand how narrowly drawn the court's judgement was in that case. Even so, I think U.S v. Miller was wrongly decided.

And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.

But you very carefully asked about the Constitution. Kopel, Halbroook and Korwin's Supreme Court Gun Cases is a useful reference on the topic.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

..{hey look over there}...

Happy Monkey was asking where you stand, MaggieL, not what the law says. You say you aren't on the slope. If not, where are you? He acknowledged that there are restrictions on owning nukes. Listing those restrictions doesn't answer the question.

In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?

Yes, although that highly hypothetical strawman isn't high on my list of unconstitutional weapons prohibitions to worry about.

Much higher are the liberals who want to confiscate the much more ordinary weapons that I actually do have (and could actually use in justified self-defense without causing megadeaths of collateral damage, most likely including myself) on the specious theory that doing so will somehow reduce violent crime.

I think there's a lot of provisions of the National Firearms Act that are unconstitutional too. The Pennsylvania State Police maintans a gun registry that's forbidden by an explicit statue. There's lots of gun laws that suck mightily, but I try to reserve my attention for the ones that matter most.

For example, why does "full faith and credit" apply to drivers licences, but not to gun licences and marriage licences? (It's interesting that both gun licencing and marriage licencing were invented to instiutionalize racial discrimination...perhaps that's why somehow Article IV, Section 1 is ignored in those cases)

We hear the "nuke" strawman trotted out every so often to get us onto the slippery slope of "some weapons should be prohibited", and start the old prohibitionist salami game category by category. The folks behind the Clinton Gun Ban admitted quite openly that that was exactly what they intended to do.

Wouldn't anybody who assembling a nuke be arrested under the "risking a catastrophe" statutes? It's not necessary to sacrifice the Second Amendment principle to address this mostly imaginary "problem".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view.

My view is that if you believe the 2nd Amendment prohibits the regulation of arms, then it must also support the right of anyone to own nuclear weapons.

And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.

Under your view of the 2nd amendment, how could that be valid? It would be like allowing firearms, but prohibiting civilian posession of gunpowder. The 2nd should override.

But you very carefully asked about the Constitution.

Right. Any other laws aren't relevant if you think they are unconstitutional (relevant discussion-wise; in real life you still have to follow them if you aren't up for the consequences).

What I think "pretty much everyone" believes is that there are some weapons that should not be in your neighbor's basement. Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

--snip--
What I think "pretty much everyone" believes is that there are some weapons that should not be in your neighbor's basement. Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.

Well said, Happy Monkey. Thank you for so clearly pointing out the obvious. It is important and necessary, even if it is difficult or "freaking boring".