Amazon.com Widgets

Should people be allowed to have nuclear weapons under the 2nd amendment?

  • Constitutionally yes, practically, no

    The arguments presented here against nuclear are just practical reasons, "People are not to be trusted." These are not constitutional reasons. The constitution says precisely that people are to be trusted, with the most horrible weapons of mass destruction you can imagine, all in the name of protecting themselves against Government. Practically, it's time to change the Constitution.

  • Discriminate vs. Indiscriminate weapons.

    Some hold the view that the 2nd Amendment only applies to so-called 'discriminate' weapons, i.e. those which may be directed by the user to nullify a specific threat. Weapons of mass destruction do not qualify in their view as they may inflict harm on innocent bystanders (aka collateral damage). The speciousness of this argument is glaringly apparent when one considers that the 2nd Amendment's intent was to ensure the ability of the populace to defend against a tyrannical government as well as prevent crime. We have today examples of the government using drones against its own citizens. In practical terms, please tell me how afraid is the government of its people when it possesses drones, patriot missiles, and nukes and they do not? I am NOT advocating the private ownership of such weapons, simply highlighting the inability of today's citizens to exercise their rights under the Constitution.

  • Restrictions do no good.

    The thing is the government has no right to ban any sort of weapon. Anything can be abused whether it be a ballistic, projectile or mêlée weapon or anything else. People can use it for right, wrong or even just recreation. Banning ANYTHING just leads to the creation of a black market. If nukes ever become legal in the U.S. the customer probably has to be rich in the millions, even billions of dollars.
    Plus the market for such weapons would probably be very limited I mean good luck for the responsible person finding someone who is willing to build one with material/manufacturing/labor costs.
    Last the government has killed more people than any other entity.

  • Shall not be infringed upon...

    The second amendment says that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "unless it is a weapon of mass destruction" I would like to point out that during the American Revolution, private citizens owned cannons, the peak of military engineering at that time. Why shouldn't citizens today own the peak of military engineering if they can afford it?

  • In the view of the founders, yes.

    I think the majority of Americans would agree the second amendment was put in place so that the people would have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. To this end, it can be inferred from the writings of the founders that the second amendment was to allow possession of weapons equal or greater than what the government possessed. This would in the mind of the founders, have included nukes. Many people here have protested this notion on practical grounds by saying that 200 years ago people couldn't even imagine the destructive power of nuclear weapons. This is true, and Thomas Jefferson foresaw such a situation and suggested a remedy: every 30 years a constitution should be "updated" by referendum to be kept relevant. It is possible today for the people to vote to explicitly exclude nukes or tanks, aircraft carriers, ect. From the second amendment.
    What the founders would not have wanted, was the law to be ignored by the executive. The rule of law demands that the president faithfully execute the law, no matter how outdated or irrelevant it may become over time. It is the responsibility of the people to change the law, not for the executive to ignore it or a judge to declare it no longer applicable. Such disrespect for the written law hearkens back to "Royal prerogative", where the king of England would overrule parliament and make a law invalid simply be declaring it to be so. It was this sort of system that the American revolution was fought to end, and it is this sort of system that we should really fear most, even more than a citizen getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

  • No, that's too much

    No one needs that kind of firepower. If you want a shotgun to protect your home, or a rifle to hunt with, that should be your right, but no one needs nukes, or ICBMs, or tanks, or assault rifles, or 100 round magazines, or bazookas, or grenade launchers, or SAMs, or...

  • Private ownership of nuclear weapons is out of the question.

    Where would anyone get a nuclear weapon. In today's day and age, the process of buying and maintaining a single or a private arsenal of nuclear weapons by a private individual is near impossible if not impossible altogether. It takes a massive amount of resources, time, and money to maintain nuclear weapons. The only people these days who have the resources to buy nuclear weapons are the extremely wealthy. And why would the extremely wealthy buy nuclear weapons? And why would anyone want to own a nuclear weapon? North Korea is not going to attack a single individual. Thats naive. Private ownership of nuclear weapons is out of the question too...

  • Private Ownership of Nuclear Weapons Leads to Anarchy

    The right to bear arms is one of the most fundamental rights of American citizens because it ensures that we have the ability to defend our life, liberty and property from unjustified assailants of those freedoms. While firearms can only do so much damage to citizens when used offensively, the private ownership of nuclear weapons would leave its victims utterly defenseless and has a greater plausibility of extensively killing innocents. The power of nuclear weapons is too pervasive to be left to the devices of United States citizens. The privatization of nukes would inevitably lead to anarchy, thus only nuclear power should be left in the control of the government.

  • People aren't rational

    Behavior economics and cognitive psychology have demonstrated in a multitude of ways over the last several decades that people often make decisions that do not make sense. The dividing line between "good guys" and "bad guys" is a faulty one. I don't trust anyone with the power to destroy with such ferocity, because I believe we are all inescapably subject to errors in judgment.

  • People are not to be trusted with a weapon that powerful.

    Time after time we see that people are threatened by criminals with weapons like handguns. Gangs get their hands on the most powerful weapons they can get to do whatever injustice they want. If nuclear weapons are on the market thousands of lives will be lost and our environment will suffer greatly from the radiation.

  • People are not to be trusted with a weapon that powerful.

    Time after time we see that people are threatened by criminals with weapons like handguns. Gangs get their hands on the most powerful weapons they can get to do whatever injustice they want. If nuclear weapons are on the market thousands of lives will be lost and our environment will suffer greatly from the radiation.

  • People are not to be trusted with a weapon that powerful.

    Time after time we see that people are threatened by criminals with weapons like handguns. Gangs get their hands on the most powerful weapons they can get to do whatever injustice they want. If nuclear weapons are on the market thousands of lives will be lost and our environment will suffer greatly from the radiation.

  • People are not to be trusted with a weapon that powerful.

    Time after time we see that people are threatened by criminals with weapons like handguns. Gangs get their hands on the most powerful weapons they can get to do whatever injustice they want. If nuclear weapons are on the market thousands of lives will be lost and our environment will suffer greatly from the radiation.

  • The Second Amendment..........

    ... Has nothing to do with nukes or any other heavy weapons. I believe that the Second Amendment was put in place for the people (not militias) to do exactly what it says... To "bear" (carry) arms.

    I do not think that the amendment even in that day meant that the average person could keep cannons at their homes or other such weapons. Arms in the meaning of the amendment meant the hand weapons of war of the day, be it swords, handguns, rifles, clubs or other hand carried and used weapons.

    Today that can still be handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. I don't think it means tanks, nukes of any kind, artillery or any other heavy weapons just as it didn't mean the heavy weapons of the day in the late 1700's.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.