The nuke argument from the gun control crowd

[Eugene V. Debs]

You know the one I'm talking about-- "By that logic, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to own their own personal nuclear bomb?"

Now, I have some counter-arguments to this, among them:

1. Because nukes are so prohibitively expensive that, besides governments, only large corporations and well-financed terrorist organizations could afford them.

2. Getting rid of all nukes would be a hell of a lot easier than getting rid of all guns-- thus putting everyone at a level playing field.

3. The destructive power and potential for collateral damage of a nuclear weapon is so far beyond that of an assault rifle, or even a rocket launcher, that it is in an entirely different category of arms.

These arguments are empirically correct and quite practical, but ultimately I find them logically unsatisfying. For the philosophy buffs, Hume might approve of my argument but Descartes would not. I'm looking for an argument that would satisfy Kant.

Anybody have a really good counter-argument to the "Why shouldn't everyobody have nukes then?" argument from the gun-control crowd?

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

The better argument would be that according to our founding fathers AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS the original intent was that each citizen should be able to own the same small arms which would be issued a footsoldier (i.e. in 1776 anything up to a musket/rifle), in modern times, any small arms up to and including machine guns.

I can't remember exactly where in the Federalist papers it is but I do know that it is there...check it out!!! That is where the clarification comes from.

[Eugene V. Debs]

The better argument would be that according to our founding fathers AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS the original intent was that each citizen should be able to own the same small arms which would be issued a footsoldier (i.e. in 1776 anything up to a musket/rifle), in modern times, any small arms up to and including machine guns.

I can't remember exactly where in the Federalist papers it is but I do know that it is there...check it out!!! That is where the clarification comes from.

Ah, I didn't know that. That's an excellent argument from the standpoint of defending the original intent of 2a, however, I argue from the standpoint of natural rights, rather than the Constitution's codification of those rights. I think the natural right is more important than the legal right and moreover if you focus on the natural right you avoid endless arguments over 2a's intent from the gun-grabbers. Not to say 2a arguments aren't important from a legal standpoint-- they most definitely are-- but I'm not a lawyer so I want to win hearts and minds rather than win a legal argument.

If you find in the Federalist Papers where it said that, lemme know. That's a useful piece of information.

[D-FENS]

I've said it before but I think a person should be able to own any arm possessed by the the Gov't. This is another check and balance of our structure. The Gov't shouldn't develop weapons that it doesn't want it's citizenry to possess.

I know a lot of people disagree with that but IMO, it's a simple check and balance. If you don't want your citizenry to hold those weapons against you, in defense of themselves, then those weapons shouldn't be used against enemies of the state (foreign or domestic).

.02

[Eugene V. Debs]

I've said it before but I think a person should be able to own any arm possessed by the the Gov't. This is another check and balance of our structure. The Gov't shouldn't develop weapons that it doesn't want it's citizenry to possess.

I know a lot of people disagree with that but IMO, it's a simple check and balance. If you don't want your citizenry to hold those weapons against you, in defense of themselves, then those weapons shouldn't be used against enemies of the state (foreign or domestic).

.02

Excellent point, but they have been developed, so what now?

[awkx]

Regarding the Second Amendment, I think "arms" meant "small arms", and that cannons and such would be classified as "ordnance" instead of "arms". (This goes along with what FromMyColdDeadHands said.) Today, nukes wouldn't be considered "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.

Regarding natural rights, the right to arms derives from the right to self-defense, and I don't see any realistic in which a person would need a nuke for personal self-defense.

OK, gotta run to class now!

[RocketFoot]

"Enriched weapons grade uranium is little more dangerous to handle than gun powder!" That's what I'd say...LOL

[NineseveN]

Regarding the Second Amendment, I think "arms" meant "small arms", and that cannons and such would be classified as "ordnance" instead of "arms". (This goes along with what FromMyColdDeadHands said.) Today, nukes wouldn't be considered "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.

Regarding natural rights, the right to arms derives from the right to self-defense, and I don't see any realistic in which a person would need a nuke for personal self-defense.

OK, gotta run to class now!

There were privately owned cannons and battleships (armed with cannons) in the time of our founders (some pressed into service during wartime). Some were owned collectively by towns, others were owned by individuals. I don't think that arms != ordnance is the right argument on a factual or historic level.

What is the right argument? I don't know, I'm not sure there is one that won't result in a slippery slope at some point. I guess we could look at nukes as indiscriminate area of effect weapons that are not suitable for defending against tyranny at home (or at least defending yourself). Nukes are not domestic weapons, they're meant to be deployed on soil other than your own, and attacking another country on its own soil is the purview of the government under military war powers, not the individual citizen's under the Second Amendment.

[headcase]

How's this: The 2nd Amendment recognizes and ensures our right to keep and bear arms. It was committed to paper, so the government would not be able to refute it. I believe that the intent of that Amendment, is to ensure that the citizens have every weapon the government has, and the ability to employ them against that government. A nuclear weapon would be of no use to a government against it's own people, nor a people against it's government. Destroying the very thing you wish to control, is, well, kind of pointless, don't you think?? Nuclear weapons are nation killers. Why do you think only two very small ones were ever used?
Nuclear material in and of itself poses an imminent danger to not just life and property, but to the environment it is in. It's use is so innately harmful and dangerous, and it's possession requires such a degree of safe containment that even the governments that possess it, regulate it incredibly closely. Where as firearms and conventional weapons are of no, or at most, negligible, inherent danger and require some external force to be applied in order to make them dangerous, nuclear material is unstable and just being in it's proximity causes irreparable harm. The average citizen, hell even the overwhelming majority of un average citizens, do not have the means to even handle or possess it. For that matter, neither do most countries. That is just in reference to the material, do I need to get into the actual means to turn it into a weapon? But if you must use such ridiculous examples due to the lack of logical argument against firearm ownership, then yes, every citizen should be allowed to own one.......

[LorDiego01]

Should a person be allowed to own a vial full of weaponized, extremely contagious and deadly germs?