Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (4336)	1/18/2013 9:35:39 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	8 Recommendations Respond to of 125669

Very clever argument. But completely meaningless. There is no reasonable expectation that the US Government would ever use a nuke on its own soil as it would make that land uninhabitable and unusable. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that we have the ability to defend ourselves against a tyranny (or other threat). As a defensive device, a nuke only works if there is a concept of mutually assured destruction. Which means that it has no defensive function if you do not divulge its existence. At that point you have declared war on the U.S. and personally on everybody in your near vicinity. Which makes you a legitimate target as an enemy combatant. So one answer is, go ahead, build your own nuke and carry it around with you. You'll last a day before someone takes you out. But the real answer is that it is not "arms" as in "keep and bear arms". It is a weapon of mass destruction and you cannot be expected to use it in a way that doesn't harm the lives and personal property of thousands of innocent people if you were to use it. Nukes are therefore not covered in the 2nd amendment. Oh, and firearm freedom or restrictions have nothing to do with whether a nation is communist or socialist. Though restricting firearms certainly is a tool for totalitarian forms of government, it is not limited communism and socialism.