Should I be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

Here's my question (to myself and others)... suppose technology continues to accelerate over the next couple of decades to the point where nuclear weapons are somewhat "easy" to obtain or build on your own. Suppose a gun is created that can shoot bullets containing such weapons in a miniaturized form.

Would the 2nd Amendment protect my 'right' to own and operate such a nuclear gun? Or, perhaps, is there a point in the spectrum between a BB gun (theoretically lethal in the wrong circumstance) and a nuclear gun where a person's 2nd Amendment rights cease in the interest of public safety?

That is the fundamental question at stake in our national debate over gun control. My basic political worldview is that my rights end when the exercise of those rights impinges your rights without good cause. In the case of a BB gun, I can find quiet enjoyment in such a device without undue risk to the public from an accidental misfire or someone who has ill intentions. The same cannot be said for a nuclear gun. One's right to own such a gun cannot be held in higher weight than the extreme potential for maximal devastation in the event of accidental or fell intent.

While I think nearly everyone would agree so far, where the point of conflict arises is over items such as assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. (Full disclosure: I have used both multiple times for enjoyment, target / range shooting.) Does my right to bear arms cease when easy access to such arms unnecessarily endangers innocent bystanders?

One response to this argument is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was intended as a check on the powers of the government and to ensure that the citizens of this nation had the means to engage in civil unrest in the event of the abrogation of necessary rights. One might argue that the defense of this recourse is 'worth' (sad as it may be) any fallout from the misuse of such weapons in the mean time.

I had been fairly 'decided' on this issue until this most recent shooting. I'm less sure now. How about you?

 

Itv would require a rifle that can shoot a round bullet that weighs more than 100 lbs, so I think it is a moot question.

 

It's a philosophical question designed to determine where on the spectrum of potential destruction the 2nd Amendment ends.

What say you?

 

Get ten. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, so I hear, ergo nukes don't kill people either. Give a few to Iran.

 

A nuclear gun would be a weapon of mass destruction. This thread makes no sense. WMDs are not supported by our interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

after a background check, sure....but if you don't have the resources to keep it appropriately secured and out of the wrong hands and it gets in the wrong hands, you should be in for a seriously bad time.

How much you reckon it would cost to keep a nuclear weapon appropriately secured 24/7/365? tens of millions of dollars a year, I'd think. Joe Sixpack have that laying around? Joe Sixpack want that responsibility...liability... hanging over their head?

 

I'm pretty certain the federal courts including the Supreme Court (which is the ultimate arbiter of what the 2nd Amendment means) would hold that the founding fathers never intended to guarantee the rights of citizens to possess ALL POSSIBLE arms and that it only applies to firearms.

The government is already allowed to ban private ownership of far less dangerous weapons than nuclear weapons. Like tanks, combat aircraft, various munitions and automatic weapons.

 

There are other questions that naturally stem from your question:

Is the right to buy & sell different from the right to have one?

If having one was banned, would that prevent bad people from getting their hands on one and using it for evil purposes?

Does one country have a right to prevent a citizen of different country from these type of weapons? How about if this person is in international waters?

 

Of course you do recognize the composition of the court makes all the difference in interpreting the 2nd Amendment. For instance, a liberal court may find 2nd Amendment protections do not include ownership of assault weapons. Or extended clips intended to allow a shooter to have more rounds available before reloading.
We need to begin more seriously weighing the safety of the public against the right to own a firearm.

 

I'm pretty sure the Constitution originally meant for the individual States to be able to regulate these things, but it was an individual right so far as the federal government was concerned.

(Of course, what the original intended meaning was and what the courts interpret it to be are two different things)

 

I suppose the argument is one of extremes and there's no exact clear cut-off point where the line should be drawn.

 

No, individuals should not be allowed nuclear weapons, or bazookas, or shoulder fired missiles, or.......

 

Interesting that you used the word 'interpretation.'

The point of the question is exactly that our understanding of the 2nd Amendment is an interpretation that is inherently subjective. As technology gets better and firearms become more powerful / less expensive, one must ask at which point on the spectrum of 'how much damage can this device cause' does the 2nd Amendment end in the interest of public good?

 

It is just that- an interpretation. Something none of us can argue even though I badly want to. What I'm saying is that our current interpretation has WMDs classified as strictly military. Do you disagree?

 

We already ban machine guns made after 1986 and heavily regulate those built before that so...your question is answered

 

Trying to understand what words mean exactly in the minds of the authors is not being inherently subjective.

 

Assault weapons...and if that's confusing...semi autos with detachable magazines

 

Not correct. Even fully automatics are not banned, but it takes a lot of effort to get a permit. Semi automatics with or without detachable magazines, or with or without large magazines should neither be banned nor regulated (beyond the current regulations for all firearms). Every firearm, knife, baseball bat, etc is an assault weapon. The only definition of assault used in this regard is Feinstein's 'it sure looks terrible to me.'

 

What I want to know is why we can't take down a drone flying over our homes taking pictures and movies of folks in their own private homes? Should we be allowed to buy that rifle that takes them down with microwaves or use a shotgun? I think we should.

 

Networked 3D printers combined with nanotech are far more fearful possibilities than superpowered "guns."

On the balancing test between national security, health and welfare, and nuclear weapons possession by citizens, there would be a 2 ton elephant on one side of the scale and nothing on the other. Sophomore bong bull session topic, nothing more.

 

Depends where you live. If you're in a suburban development then shooting off a shotgun into the sky should be restricted because it could impact other people living in surrounding homes.
I wouldn't fault you though if you tried shooting something else up to defend your privacy, something just a bit safer like perhaps a paintball gun.

 

That's a nonsensical question based on sheer ignorance of all things nuclear.

If you strip-mined the entire Earth -- including the ocean floors -- you just might get enough Pu239 to build a 5 kt warhead.

 

Wrong. Full autos manufactured after 1986 ARE illegal to own. Those made before that are heavily regulated...as I stated earlier

You want to quibble over the definition of what is and what isn't an assault weapon?

Fine. Let's make it simple and easily understood.

Any semi-auto detachable magazine fed weapon.

Happy with that?

 

The way to interpret the second amendment, or any part of the bill of rights is to simply look at it as a bit of unnecessary verbiage. A constitution is supposed to define the powers of a government, so where can we find anything in the constitution that specifically says that the federal government can dictate what kinds of arms we have?

Nowhere.

However, that would leave it up to the individual states to decide whether residents of those states are allowed to have nuclear weapons.

So to answer your question, no. The second amendment restricts the federal government's ability to say you cannot own a nuclear weapon. The supremacy clause would not apply because the constitution limits the federal government's powers, but not state powers.

Of course, that's all bollocks now because we don't have a constitution. It's a cute bit of historical irrelevancy that would have been nice, had we decided that it is important enough to fight for. The federal government can make laws saying we can't have guns because they have all the power, and nothing that can stop them from making any law they want.

 

Are you saying a machete is not an assault weapon? A baseball bat? A 9mm Glock?