Yes they did. And didn’t know it nor know how to fix it. We have no idea what they would have thought in times of crisis like this.
So you’re saying you have no problem with individuals owning nuclear bombs as their right to bear arms? Just FYI I’m also against countries including us having them but that’s another story.
Nothing should ever be done to limit the ability of someone to kill a massive amount of people? I have a hard time believing if we were in a scenario that was putting you and your family at risk that you’d be so whatever.
This is kind of a silly argument. A gun is a little bit of metal. A nuclear bomb costs billions to develop, a rare element (uranium), the ability to convert said uranium to weapons grade, and a $700M B-2 bomber to deploy it.
So like 5 people can afford a nuclear bomb.
*At any rate, I’ll just say what I always say when this comes up. If the second amendment is not what the people want any more than change it. It’s really that simple.
Not entirely. There was a pretty bad smallpox outbreak during the revolution. Read up on it a bit. Washington had his army innoculated. That outbreak wasnt forgotten when they debated the constitution.
A person with a respiratory infection and nuclear weapons aren’t the same. It’s not equal.
It was also a restriction on the Federal Government. If arms control is desired, it has to come at the State(edit: or local) level-of course, some States(mine included) have enshrined the right in their Constitutions as well…so that would also have to be changed.
Unless a bunch combine to pay for lots of them. Then they put Donald Trump in charge of them. I know @H_factor loves the guy, but I’m not sure I trust him anymore than I do the people that could afford one of these weapons on their own.
Isn’t the argument from some that the second amendment is a protection from the government and therefore individual citizens should be able to own what the government does? I mean yeah it’s taken to the extreme no doubt. But if me a random dad in Kansas obtained his own nuclear bomb do the citizens in this country have a right to take it away from me?
I think it’s a hell of a stretch but don’t want to argue the minute on it.
If coronavirus (apparently insanely contagious) or something similar had a higher rate of death let’s say 95%. In that scenario a known individual with that has no obligation to do anything differently than anyone else. And society should have no determination in making sure their community is safe from that?
I think this virus isn’t an example of something where we would need to go that far. But I think scenarios exist where people would play a hell of a different tune. And that’s what I think C was talking about.
I think one of the arguments is roughly along those lines, but you still have to take into consideration the ability for people to actually buy/maintain the weapons. Letter of the law, yes, people should be able to own nuclear weapons, but it’s all but impossible to actually do so. The same is true for a lot of military weapons systems as a lot of them have classified parts and are very expensive. So, not only do you need millions of dollars, but you also have to engineer the parts yourself. It’s just not feasible.
In my opinion? No not based on the language of the 2nd and it’s subsequent incorporation, but we can probably just use one of those fancy new red flag laws to take it.
Yeah I’m not trying to argue any of it would be easy. FWIW I think if I was in possession of a nuclear bomb it should be taken from me. I think society has a right to take action when it’s very possible that someone else’s action may destroy the country or at least large parts of it.
I do not believe our decisions should always be based on “well let’s just wait and see how this plays out.” The vast majority of times yes but not all.
Me too, but I think the correct way to do that is to change the 2nd to exclude what we don’t think citizens should have. I think that’s probably the only detail we differ on.
Only if you open carry so everyone knows you have the explosive. That way people who are armed can totally wait until they think you will do something before shooting! We wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions you were planning something bad.
How would you come to be in possession of it? Why would it have to be taken, when it sounds like you would just give it up?
Do you vote? Would you be okay with the last person you voted for in a presidential election owning a nuclear bomb as a private citizen?
Not relevant. The exercise was should I be allowed to possess one as a protection against the government. Should I be able to have the most powerful tool in my defense against the government? Or do people have a right to demand their neighbor doesn’t have that.
And if I wouldn’t?
No. I’ve already said I’d prefer if countries didn’t have them either. But I think most are “ok” (or maybe just resigned) to the idea that modern militaries have plenty of items we would not want average citizens to possess.
What good would a desire to take it do? You’ve got a nuke and don’t want to give it up. People can either leave you the hell alone and hope that you’re not completely nuts, or they can try to take it and force you to use it.
So the people who come over and forcibly take it from me because they are terrified of the destruction I may cause should be charged and potentially jailed for theft I would assume. If we’re arguing the military shouldn’t be able to be involved then they should face legal action.
I thought you didn’t want to give it up in this scenario? You didn’t deploy it when they took it? Seems like you’re pretty sane. Yes, charge them.
Are we talking real world or scenario world? As it is, I’m sure the government has given itself the power to take it from you.
Of course, North Korea and Russia have nukes…and nobody’s going to confiscate them.