"You don't have the right to bear suitcase nukes.."

[DW357]

My pro gun college friend (girl) posted about this lame article/blog from the huffpost (told her not to listen to that junk):
View attachment 152501
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8707916

Which prompted this response from another college "acquaintance" who I haven't talked to in 4 years.
View attachment 152502

Yes yes I know I shouldn't waste my time but lately I've had some free time during work so I don't mind debating with these fools lol. I didn't even know where to begin.

 

[Lcstyle]

it's a straw man / false dichotomy.

nuclear weapons are to nation states what firearms, rifles, etc. are to individuals.

Ask her why nation states don't get rid of their nuclear weapons, or why don't militaries globally disarm?

It's a stupid proposition / question. It's like asking the question "what is the universe in."

It's completely inane.

 

[DW357]

it's a straw man / false dichotomy.

nuclear weapons are to nation states what firearms, rifles, etc. are to individuals.

Ask her why nation states don't get rid of their nuclear weapons, or why don't militaries globally disarm?

It's a stupid proposition / question. It's like asking the question "what is the universe in."

It's completely inane.

Had to Google false dichotomy . Makes sense now.

I guess his absurd argument is that we put limits on freedom of speech so why not limit the type of arms/weapons one person can have? Not sure how limiting the type of weapons would have prevented yesterday's crap. Such a ridiculous argument that goes back to the saying that criminals don't follow laws. Smh.

 

[Rider]

Why don't I have the right to have suitcase nukes? There is no reason to think I would use them irresponsibly, and all the evidence available indicates I will be much more responsible than most of the countries that do have them.

Damned statists.

 

[omega42]

Why don't I have the right to have suitcase nukes? There is no reason to think I would use them irresponsibly ...

Maybe not, but how would you practice using them responsibly?

 

[DW357]

Why don't I have the right to have suitcase nukes? There is no reason to think I would use them irresponsibly, and all the evidence available indicates I will be much more responsible than most of the countries that do have them.

Damned statists.

Very good point. I think his head would explode if I asked him why I don't have the right to bear suitcase nukes lol. This should be fun.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Get him to change his Facebook name to "Brandon Tries to not suck, fails miserably". Its more fitting.

 

[DW357]

Get him to change his Facebook name to "Brandon Tries to not suck, fails miserably". Its more fitting.

So many people in college had all kinds of jokes because of his last name but this one tops the list.

 

[Bob P]

Very good point. I think his head would explode if I asked him why I don't have the right to bear suitcase nukes lol. This should be fun.

I've done that. They just sputter.

 

[spcantwell]

The "yelling fire in a theater" line is way overused. A closer coralation is its a crime to use your speech to commit a crime (like yelling fire or threatening to kill someone) likewise it's illegal to use a firearm to threaten someone or shooting over someones head (aka in a crowded theater)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[DW357]

I've done that. They just sputter.

I can't wait for his response.

- - - Updated - - -

The "yelling fire in a theater" line is way overused. A closer coralation is its a crime to use your speech to commit a crime (like yelling fire or threatening to kill someone) likewise it's illegal to use a firearm to threaten someone or shooting over someones head (aka in a crowded theater)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah I'm sick of hearing people use that yelling fire in theater line too.

 

[AHM]

... Most people recognize that there are limitations on the sorts of arms you have a right to bear (e.g. you don't have a right to bear suitcase nukes [...]).

nuclear weapons are to nation states what firearms, rifles, etc. are to individuals. Ask her why nation states don't get rid of their nuclear weapons, or why don't militaries globally disarm? It's a stupid proposition / question. ...

It's not a stupid issue if you can use it as a cudgel on the shallow.

UT/Knoxville law professor Glenn Reynolds blogs as "Instapundit". In 1995 (i.e., pre-Heller), he co-authored The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment:

​

The Second Amendment ... is, on its face at least, one of the murkier constitutional provisions. In recent years, the public debate over the meaning of the Amendment has become more heated, ... One major feature of this debate has been disagreement over what the Second Amendment protects. The great majority of recent law review commentary sees the Amendment as recognizing a right of individuals, ... In contrast to the individual rights view, advocates of restricting gun ownership have championed a "states' right" view of the Second Amendment, contending that its goal is to guarantee only the states' right to have armed militias, usually characterized as the contemporary National Guard.​

​

We will not enter that debate in this Article. Instead, we will undertake what physicists term a "thought experiment." We will take as a given that the Second Amendment does what states' rights advocates say it does, protecting only the right of states to maintain organized military forces such as the militia and the National Guard, without creating any rights enforceable by ordinary individuals. We will then explore an issue that has been ignored even by proponents of the "states' rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment: If the Second Amendment grants rights to states, rather than individuals, what exactly are those rights, and what are the consequences for the Constitution and other aspects of state and federal relations?​

​

...​

​

Moreover, under the states' right view, the Second Amendment guarantees a vastly greater range of weaponry (to state-authorized civilians or to the states themselves) than is implied by the individual right view. Exponents of the latter view have been at some pains to show that the Amendment extends to small arms only. Warships, tanks, artillery, missiles, atomic bombs, and so forth are excluded from its guarantee for several reasons, including the Amendment's text, the history of the common law right to arms, and the logic of the individual right position.​

​

Of course, none of the limitations implicit in the individual right view applies to the states' right view because the common law imposed no limitations on the kinds of arms the government might possess. If the incongruity of the Amendment describing a state as "bearing" arms can be ignored, which the states' right view necessarily does, a state is obviously no more incapable of "bearing" cannon than any other kind of arms. Moreover, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the existence of state military forces that can serve as "a military counterpoint to the regular standing army," the arms it guarantees the states logically could include even the most destructive implements of modern war. However unsettling these results may be, they inevitably result from the Antifederalist critique of the original Constitution upon which proponents of the states' right view rely. ...​

​

(Emphasis mine).

So rather than trying to dodge the issue, use it the next time someone refuses to accept Heller's individual rights as settled law. Point out that if the 2nd only concerns states' militias, they must logically concede that Texas is constitutionally guaranteed the right to nukes.

 

[garandman]

Very good point. I think his head would explode if I asked him why I don't have the right to bear suitcase nukes lol. This should be fun.

Well, it doesn't do much for your lifespan, for one thing.

BTW, they are real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

 

[CTpatriot]

i wonder what the actual law is. you can own explosive devices if permitted,taxed and stored properly, so why not a davy crockett.

 

[DW357]

i wonder what the actual law is. you can own explosive devices if permitted,taxed and stored properly, so why not a davy crockett.

Lol that's pretty badass. Ive never heard of the Davy Crockett weapon. Had to google that as well.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Had to Google false dichotomy . Makes sense now.

I guess his absurd argument is that we put limits on freedom of speech so why not limit the type of arms/weapons one person can have? Not sure how limiting the type of weapons would have prevented yesterday's crap. Such a ridiculous argument that goes back to the saying that criminals don't follow laws. Smh.

I have been thinking about the argument that if there are limitations on the first amendment, there should be limitations on the second amendment.

People like to point out that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. They are wrong. You can. If you do, that speech won't be protected. You can go to jail.

The thing is, everyone has the potential to yell fire, yet no one can do anything about it until you do.

The second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. Anyone with arms has the potential to do bad things... but you can't go around trying to restrict someone's rights because the might do something wrong.

The price we pay for preventing the infringement of our freedoms is safety. Sure, things would be a little safer if we could go arrest all the people who we think might do something that would endanger others, but then you would have to accept being arrested for something that someone else thinks you might potentially do.

The point here is that the constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. It applies after the fact. You have the ability to say anything, but only some of it might be protected. That which isn't protected by the first amendment may be subject to penalty. You have the ability to keep any firearm you want and do with it what you please. Keeping and bearing (having at the ready) is protected. Beyond that may be subject to penalty.

 

[VTHunter]

BTW, they are real.

I thought you were referring to the avatar.

 

[browncoat]

A properly shielded nuclear weapon would be too heavy to carry on your person. It would also be too expensive for all but the wealthiest to own.

 

[shadowr434]

It's not a stupid issue if you can use it as a cudgel on the shallow.

UT/Knoxville law professor Glenn Reynolds blogs as "Instapundit". In 1995 (i.e., pre-Heller), he co-authored The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment:



(Emphasis mine).

So rather than trying to dodge the issue, use it the next time someone refuses to accept Heller's individual rights as settled law. Point out that if the 2nd only concerns states' militias, they must logically concede that Texas is constitutionally guaranteed the right to nukes.

See, I don't see any confusion on the second or any other amendment being for the people or the individual since the constitution is for the people, not the Govt. I don't know what is so confusing to some of these mental midgets?

 

[Prepper]

As for yelling fire in a theater, you actually can do this... if there's a real fire. Although, I personally would recommend quickly getting to the door, opening it wide, then yelling to everyone else "Excuse me everyone but we have 4 exits to this theater, one in each corner... everyone head calmly towards their nearest exit because that bright orange stuff you see over there in the projection booth is actually a fire. Please, no trampling!"

The suitcase nuke argument is absurd... there's no realistic way for an individual to deploy that defensively without harming innocents. Even if you explode it in a desert with no people around, the fallout will spread a long distance and harm innocents. So, if I learned my neighbor was constructing such a device on his own, it would not be unreasonable for me to suspect he is up to no good with it since he can't actually use it without endangering other people. And, if he used it in our neighborhood, I'd be dead too. Therefore, I would feel the need to get together with other freedom-minded people and proactively stop that neighbor from completing his nuclear bomb project.

 

[Rider]

The "yelling fire in a theater" line is way overused. A closer coralation is its a crime to use your speech to commit a crime (like yelling fire or threatening to kill someone) likewise it's illegal to use a firearm to threaten someone or shooting over someones head (aka in a crowded theater)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' is entirely appropriate. You learn in in Philosophy/Con Law 101, and it is spoon fed to you, which is about the level of discourse you can get from the vast majority of people today - if you are lucky.

 

[browncoat]

As for yelling fire in a theater, you actually can do this... if there's a real fire. Although, I personally would recommend quickly getting to the door, opening it wide, then yelling to everyone else "Excuse me everyone but we have 4 exits to this theater, one in each corner... everyone head calmly towards their nearest exit because that bright orange stuff you see over there in the projection booth is actually a fire. Please, no trampling!"

The suitcase nuke argument is absurd... there's no realistic way for an individual to deploy that defensively without harming innocents. Even if you explode it in a desert with no people around, the fallout will spread a long distance and harm innocents. So, if I learned my neighbor was constructing such a device on his own, it would not be unreasonable for me to suspect he is up to no good with it since he can't actually use it without endangering other people. And, if he used it in our neighborhood, I'd be dead too. Therefore, I would feel the need to get together with other freedom-minded people and proactively stop that neighbor from completing his nuclear bomb project.

I have two problems with this argument. One is that the 2nd amendment isn't solely or mostly about individual self defense. It's about making sure that the people have the tools to overthrow a corrupt government. A suitcase nuke is a very effective tool towards that end. The second is that the yield on a suitcase nuke is pretty low, meaning that the fallout won't have much of an effect beyond where it is locally used. An individual living a couple miles away from the nearest other person could probably reasonably deploy such a device, and only have their own property be affected much. A rifle has the serious potential to harm bystanders in the case of a defensive use - that's not a good reason to ban them.

 

[Lip]

Why yes I do. If .gov has it, I can have it. Pure and simple.

 

[ochmude]

As for yelling fire in a theater, you actually can do this... if there's a real fire.

Actually, you can yell "fire" even if there isn't a fire. That tired example of not being allowed to yell "fire" in a theater is completely false. What you can't do is cause a panic that results in harm. If you stand up in the middle of a crowded theater, yell "FIRE!!!", and everyone just looks at you like you're an idiot, you've broken zero laws because no one was harmed.

 

[Gunny67]

Bring it in the other direction and we should ban all knifes. Then bats. Then sticks. Maybe you should have to get a license to take a piss. We would never allow Mexico to develop a nuke but we didn't do anything when we knew North Korea was developing one. Its all about risk and reward, who we can push around and who we cant. Each side will take it as far as they are able.

 

[teaser452]

Well, maybe suitcase nukes are a bad idea.

But what about cruise missiles?

 

[Individualist]

I think the bottom line of whether the 2A protects the right to personally carry nukes comes down to proving that the type of suitcase is in common use, and in MA that it has a safety lock and does hold high capacity nukes. For the chilrin

 

[jkelly1229]

Fun fact it's illegal to detonate a nuclear device in marlborough....

 

[spcantwell]

Well, maybe suitcase nukes are a bad idea.

But what about cruise missiles?

You mean a model airplane with a payload on it?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Rider]

Well, maybe suitcase nukes are a bad idea.

But what about cruise missiles?

This is just more liberal elitism. I don't think the average person can afford the delivery system for a cruise missile.

And just for the record, when I say 'responsible' my litmus test is the basic understanding that you can't actually use nuclear weapons. Like, ever. You just want to have as many of them as possible so nobody ****s with you.