is it unconstitutional to prohibit citizens to have nuclear weapons?

[Emsworth]

So what happens if a state Constitution does not entitle that government to prohibit such weaponry?

Then the state constitution should be amended.

[John Dibble]

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware.

Careful with this line of reasoning - pistols and rifles are also military hardware. The military has quite a number of them infact.

Fine, but the differences between nukes and pistols / rifles is off the scale. Plus, a pistol / rifle is kept for protection against an attacker, most argue: protect a house or a person. A nuke doesn't achieve that.

I know a nuke can do a hell of a lot more damage than a pistol, and one can't be used in self-defense - I'm not stupid afterall, no need to state the obvious. All I said was that the 'military equipment' argument isn't a good line of reasoning because it applies to other things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say it's technically unconstitutional - this is mainly because there weren't nukes, or even a concept of nukes, when it was written. But regardless there is such a large number that thinks a ban on nukes is a good idea that that really doesn't matter. It's defacto constitutional simply because 99% of people would want nukes illegal, but still not technically constitutional because the constitution doesn't give Congress the power to make the ban.

[Giant Saguaro]

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware.

Careful with this line of reasoning - pistols and rifles are also military hardware. The military has quite a number of them infact.

Fine, but the differences between nukes and pistols / rifles is off the scale. Plus, a pistol / rifle is kept for protection against an attacker, most argue: protect a house or a person. A nuke doesn't achieve that.

I know a nuke can do a hell of a lot more damage than a pistol, and one can't be used in self-defense - I'm not stupid afterall, no need to state the obvious. All I said was that the 'military equipment' argument isn't a good line of reasoning because it applies to other things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say it's technically unconstitutional - this is mainly because there weren't nukes, or even a concept of nukes, when it was written. But regardless there is such a large number that thinks a ban on nukes is a good idea that that really doesn't matter. It's defacto constitutional simply because 99% of people would want nukes illegal, but still not technically constitutional because the constitution doesn't give Congress the power to make the ban.

Well that at least makes sense. Okay. But technically I feel it does give the federal government the power beyond the defacto bit to ban nukes under the powers granted to Congress. The regulation of land and naval forces stuff is enough for me. Because a nuke is not going to be used by a person to protect his / her home (like we said), so for me it's more clear cut.

[opebo]

LOL - man, you are either kidding or you are sniffing some bad glue. And I don't mean to offend you. I'm not trying to be insulting. But can you even imagine the security threat? Can you even IMAGINE it? I don't think so.

The Constitution is not to be interpreted according to alleged security threats, vague fears, or perceived forebodings of doom.

Yes it is.  Isn't there something in there about 'providing for the common defense'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah the one I mentioned above about the common defense.  I'm sure there are other parts that would authorize it but that one is sufficient.

[Peter]

The "common defense" clause is an authorisation to spend money for the common defense, it does not allow for regulation in the interests of the common defense. This does not mean that Congress cannot regulate the entities it creates for the common defense however, as this is authorised under other clauses.

[The Constitarian]

It is unconstitutional for the government to prohibit arms of any kind.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Can we get out of psycho insane hypothetical theory land and say people shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. 

And it is constitutional to ban people from having nukes because doing so (legalizing such a thing) severely jeopordizes one's constitutional right to NOT BE BLOWN INTO OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!

[Emsworth]

And it is constitutional to ban people from having nukes because doing so (legalizing such a thing) severely jeopordizes one's constitutional right to NOT BE BLOWN INTO OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!

There is no such constitutional right. (I'm being serious! )