Under the 2nd amendment. Should a private citizen be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

Very basic question.


Under the 2nd amendment. Should a private citizen be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


If the intent of the 2nd is to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government, the only clear means of doing so would to obviously be armed with the same weapons available to them.

without access to M1's, F-22's, Depleted uranium bullets, and air craft carriers, we cannot possibly stand against the might of the US military.

 

I choose to vote other.

I believe, LEGALLY, as the 2nd is written, there can be no ban, and legally, nothing should prevent me from owning as many nukes as I want.

From a practical point of view however, I obviously do not think ANY private citizen should own military grade weapons.

 

YES of course.

 

I think you're wrong here. While the US Military is indeed powerful and deadly, their peacetime force is vastly outnumbered by the rest of the U.S. population. It is they who would not stand a chance against us.

 

Yes.

 

The OP is crazy if it believes 'yes' is the answer.

 

Oh this common logical fallacy.

It goes something like this:

"If private citizens don't have access to air craft carriers and tanks, then their AR15's are going to be useless, so let's just disarm them"

So the argument is that because there is a disparity of force, we should make citizens even more defenseless.

This is the argument of someone who doesn't understand basic logic, or historical successes of guerilla warfare.

 

I voted other.

I dont think, legally, there is any reason to deny this.

Practically though, I can think of 10 billion reasons not to allow it.

 

Thanks for the reply. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

So I will put you down as a yes?

 

OP, there are limits to everything. I voted NO.

The question you pose will be headed towards SCOTUS someday, only it will not be for nukes, it will be for owning cartridge fed firearms versus the right to just own black powder muzzle loaders under the 2A.

That is the way the Dems will skirt round the 2A. They wont need to repel it outright, they will just castrate the 2A. Their interpretation will be the 2A was written for muzzle loaders and they had no conception of what future firearms would be capable of at the time it was drafted. Therefore citizens are allowed muzzle loaders only.

And prior to this they may make a ruling about the black guns and call them in to avoid civil war. When the black guns are confiscated, all hopes to a meaningful defense are taken away from any patriots wishing to oppose tyranny.

 

You think the parents of US Military personnel are going to kill their own kids?
You think the aunts and uncles and brothers and friends and school buddies of US Personnel are going to kill them?
You think the grandparents and all the people over 70 and under 12 are going to war against the US military?
You think average city Joe is going to war with the US Military?

This is fundamental flaw in claiming that hand held guns are going to overthrow the US Government. It's a Hollywood fantasy.
It would basically come down to a group of insurgents fighting the military.

 

That's kind of naive fantasy - the only successful modern revolutions occur when the military JOINS the insurgents. It's
not realistic to think that having black gun A or B is going to change that.

 

No one of significance in numbers or weapons are going to rise up against the nation.

 

I thought of two things here. First, what does "personal" really mean? In the day where any terrorist has access via the internet to the actual plans for a working portable device, the question becomes, would these be viewed as "personal" and if not, why? Second, the question becomes at what cost? How much, for example, does owning a device actually cost someone? Do they or would they have to demonstrate appropriate care and maintenance, undergo regular inspections from government to ensure safe storage etc?

On the front of it, this is illogical. The strawman is that if the citizenry don't have nuclear weapons that the government would actually use nuclear weapons against their own citizens. Do we really believe government would, in fact, use nuclear weapons against US rebellions? It does seem, well, laughable. Further, because citizens don't have air craft carriers, does that in any way negate the potential that it is unlikely that a personal/civilian armada would ever confront the US Navy on the high seas? Again, laughable.

So, we're left with, what? An air force quotient and an armored army quotient. Likely, both might be used against a civilian rebellion. And just as likely, ownership of those platforms my easy trade hands between the opposing forces. Likely, these transfers would be facilitated on armed conflict, which, absent nuclear retaliation or Naval blockage would be successful, no?

 

A nuclear weapon can't be used for self defense by an individual, only by a country.

People can own tanks, aircraft, grenade launchers and other destructive devices.

Nuclear weapons are only capable of being used against foreign countries.

Dealing with foreign countries is the purview of the federal government.

So no, owning a nuclear weapon would not be allowed Constitutionally, because it could only be used by design to attack a foreign country.

 

If you are arguing that the US government has become your enemy - then why couldn't a guy in Wyoming use a nuclear weapon against Washington? Your argument makes no sense. It's no different that claiming you need a gun to defend yourself against the power in Washington. Same goes for chemical weapons.

By the way - it's completely asinine to argue that having gun A or B is going to defend against the US Military. The only successful revolutions occur when the military JOINS the insurgency - not opposes it.

 

I always think it's funny when folks reference Wyoming this way. As if.... Why not New York? Or California? Seems more wealth might be concentrated in those states that might, in fact, be able to sufficiently finance a weapon, no? And, clearly, it isn't folks in the flyovers that are all twisted up these days, and any likely threat would indeed come from deep blue states, as noted. So, if the fascist left were to undertake such an initiative, it would be likely that the military, as you point out, would probably NOT become a part of the insurgency. So, you seem to have circuitously affirmed your own fear.

 

This is not in the terms of self defense though. This is to overthrow a tyrannical government. There is a massive difference there. Do I need a nuke to stop Joe Blow from breaking into my garage? Obviously not. ( although I am sure someone would argue the point )

But would I need it to overthrow the government?

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home... and extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The introduction of nuclear weapons into a discussion about gun control is a sure sign someone has nothing of value to add to the conversation.

 

I am not looking at this discussion from point of view of gun control. I am asking based on the assumption that our government has become "tyrannical" and needs to be disposed. The supposed entire reason for the 2nd amendment.

 

A nuclear weapon or a biological weapon doesn't discriminate. Besides, if it came to that, people could just take the existing nuke facilities.

We don't know what form a conflict would take. It could be akin to a civil war or any other possibility.

 

No group of gunbunnies will overthrow the US government.

 

Fair enough.
As soon as you place the discussion in terms of the 2nd Amendment, you limit the discussion to the right to keep and bear arms, previously defined.

 

Are you trolling for an emotional response, or are you trying to impress someone?