is it unconstitutional to prohibit citizens to have nuclear weapons?

[2952-0-0]

Serious question based on htmldon's post in the assault rifle thread.

[A18]

For the federal government, or the states?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No.

[Emsworth]

For the federal government, yes. For the states, no.

[MaC]

obviously Dean, where in the constitution does it mention nuclear weapons?  Since it doesn't, it's blatantly unconstitutional.  Doesn't mean we should have them though-except for me, I'm responsible.

[Alcon]

For the federal government, yes. For the states, no.

[Giant Saguaro]

Most certainly not.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

[Emsworth]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

[Gabu]

If it is, it shouldn't be.

I don't really think that allowing Utah to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose is a good idea.

[Giant Saguaro]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

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.

[A18]

The problem is that Dean has yet to answer whether we're talking about a Second Amendment or Federal Enumerated Powers issue here.

[A18]

If it is, it shouldn't be.

I don't really think that allowing Utah to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose is a good idea.

Is allowing the United States to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose a good idea? I see no reason why one would be more likely to legalize such possession than the other.

How about England or France?

[A18]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

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.

I do not think that your paranoid delusions are an adequate basis for interpreting a text.

[Giant Saguaro]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

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.

I do not think that your paranoid delusions are an adequate basis for interpreting a text.

We're talking about nukes. Okay? Legalizing nukes isn't even sound reasoning - you can't give me a good reason to legalize nuclear weapons. There is none. You're in theory land.

[A18]

When did I say we should legalize nukes?

[Gabu]

If it is, it shouldn't be.

I don't really think that allowing Utah to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose is a good idea.

Is allowing the United States to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose a good idea? I see no reason why one would be more likely to legalize such possession than the other.

How about England or France?

Either way, I don't exactly think it would be a bad idea to put as many barriers in place as possible.

[A18]

If it is, it shouldn't be.

I don't really think that allowing Utah to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose is a good idea.

Is allowing the United States to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons if they so choose a good idea? I see no reason why one would be more likely to legalize such possession than the other.

How about England or France?

Either way, I don't exactly think it would be a bad idea to put as many barriers in place as possible.

Fair enough, but then the proper route is constitutional amendment. A proposal as uncontroversial as this would probably be passed by both houses of Congress by unanimous consent, and ratified by three-fourths of the several states in a record short period of time.

[Emsworth]

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.

I ask again, which clause authorizes a general federal ban on the possession of nuclear weapons?

[Peter]

Don't be utterly ridiculous.

To exercise any of its enumerated powers the federal government has to be able to guarantee that it, you know, exists.

Given that civilian ownership of nuclear weapons could well spell the end of the federal government (not to mention a hell of a lot of people), I would say that the federal government can use the elastic clause to ban civilian ownership of nukes so that it can actually exercise its enumerated powers.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

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.

I do not think that your paranoid delusions are an adequate basis for interpreting a text.

We're talking about nukes. Okay? Legalizing nukes isn't even sound reasoning - you can't give me a good reason to legalize nuclear weapons. There is none. You're in theory land.

Its like 80% of the forum lives in whacko libertarian theory land.  They are obsessed with legalism and have completely lost touch with reality.  They would sacrifice the United States itself in order to enforce their extreme view of the Constitution.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

To exercise any of its enumerated powers the federal government has to be able to guarantee that it, you know, exists.

You shouldn't assume that they want the United States government to exist at all.  It is just a barrier between them and the anarchy that they desire.

[Peter]

To exercise any of its enumerated powers the federal government has to be able to guarantee that it, you know, exists.

You shouldn't assume that they want the United States government to exist at all.  It is just a barrier between them and the anarchy that they desire.

They might not wish it to, but I somehow suspect that the Constitution does.

[Emsworth]

Given that civilian ownership of nuclear weapons could well spell the end of the federal government (not to mention a hell of a lot of people), I would say that the federal government can use the elastic clause to ban civilian ownership of nukes so that it can actually exercise its enumerated powers.

That line of reasoning could allow the federal government to exercise a variety of powers in order to "ensure its existence." All manner of things can be said to pose a threat to the "existence" of the federal government--it does not follow that Congress may regulate them. Consider the case of the years prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Could Congress ban firearms, because an armed populace poses a threat to the existence of the government? Could Congress prohibit the freedom of speech, because criticism poses a threat to the existence of the government? Could Congress punish a particular ideological group, because its doctrines posed a threat to the existence of the government? Clearly, even without the Bill of Rights, it could not have done so.

The federal government is perfectly free to protect itself from attack by any enemy, whether domestic or foreign. In particular, Article I allows Congress to declare war (thereby covering foreign enemies), while Article III makes it treason to levy war against the United States (thereby covering domestic ones). However, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon does not constitute war against the United States.

[Everett]

It is clearly unconstitutional, but for health and safety purposes, citizens are generally not allowed or encouraged to possess nuclear weapons, and I personally have no problems with that. (Still, I would not mind buying a nuclear weapon myself.) If the government really, really worries that someone will actually challenge the Second Amendment's absence of restrictions on the sale/possession of nuclear weapons in hopes of opening the sale of nuclear weapons to the public, as Emsworth said, it should pass an amendment or something - the word "arms" is just too broad for anyone to figure out where to draw the line. Until then, the possession of nuclear weapons is not unconstitutional, as dangerous or annoying as it might sound to the average person.