is it unconstitutional to prohibit citizens to have nuclear weapons?

[Giant Saguaro]

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?

Well since when do we not take into consideration security?

BTW, folks, the Constitution says Congress can make rules governing the regulation of land and naval forces, that includes nukes. There is no reason whatsoever to legalize them anyway.

[Gabu]

However, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon does not constitute war against the United States.

So it's not a concern unless the person actually uses the nuclear weapon?

Wouldn't it be, I don't know, kind of too late at that point?  What exactly else is someone going to do with a nuclear weapon other than blow up a neighborhood?

[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.

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.

Yeah. I mean, it's like just simply because we can justify it (something, anything) via some rationalization or semantic process, hey, let's go ahead and do it! Amazing that there's actually an argument about it.

[Peter]

An armed populace is a check on the government itself, to ensure that the government is actually doing its job - it is only a threat to the existence of tyranny, not a republican government. One crazed fanatic alone with an assualt rifle in this armed populace does not in of itself present a threat to the existence of the federal government.

However, if this crazed fanatic gets a hold of a few nuclear weapons, we move into a different ball park - he is then able to actually threaten the very existence of the republican federal government, and therefore stop the federal government from executing its enumerated powers. Obviously the elastic clause can and should be used in this circumstance to ensure the continued execution of the enumerated powers.

[Emsworth]

BTW, folks, the Constitution says Congress can make rules governing the regulation of land and naval forces, that includes nukes.  

This clause only authorizes Congress to regulate the military, not the general population. Members of the general public are not members of the land or naval forces, and are accordingly not within the scope of this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of us is arguing that they should be legal. We are merely arguing that a federal ban is unconstitutional.

[ATFFL]

No one is saying (that I can tell) that it should explicitly be legal, but that it is.  To change it would require an amendment to the Constitution.  I imagine many of us would support it.

[Giant Saguaro]

BTW, folks, the Constitution says Congress can make rules governing the regulation of land and naval forces, that includes nukes.  

This clause only authorizes Congress to regulate the military, not the general population. Members of the general public are not members of the land or naval forces, and are accordingly not within the scope of this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of us is arguing that they should be legal. We are merely arguing that a federal ban is unconstitutional.

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware. The military and the government do not have to make nukes available to people.

Wait a minute. A ban is unconstitutional, but yet you're not for legalizing them? You and A18 practicing the flip-flop routine or what?

[Ebowed]

How is that a flip-flop?  Just because they think something is unconstitutional, that does not mean they would oppose it personally.

[Emsworth]

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware. The military and the government do not have to make nukes available to people.

We are not saying that the military has to make nuclear weapons available to people. Obtaining nuclear weapons from the government is different from developing a nuclear weapon on one's own (wholly implausible, I admit, but still theoretically possible.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... A federal ban is unconstitutional. A state ban is perfectly permissible.

[Everett]

Personally, I don't think nuclear weapons ought to be sold to civilians (except for me, of course ). Also, the military is highly unlikely to sell them to civilians of its own volition and since the exchange would be between two private parties (regardless of whether or not one is a government organisation), no-one can force the military to sell civilians the goods if it doesn't want to, just as no-one can (more like ought to, with all these damn lawsuits) force a business to sell goods to a certain person or persons. Constitutionally, however, there's simply nothing in the Second Amendment specifically addressing the concern of nuclear weapons.

[Giant Saguaro]

How is that a flip-flop?  Just because they think something is unconstitutional, that does not mean they would oppose it personally.

Okay, maybe it's just a real bad way to take two sides of one issue then. If I say I'm against a ban on something but yet I'm not for legalizing it, what is that? That sounds like someone walking in a bunch of circles.

[Giant Saguaro]

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware. The military and the government do not have to make nukes available to people.

We are not saying that the military has to make nuclear weapons available to people. Obtaining nuclear weapons from the government is different from developing a nuclear weapon on one's own (wholly implausible, I admit, but still theoretically possible.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... A federal ban is unconstitutional. A state ban is perfectly permissible.

Are you radical libertarians keeping up with current events? We're trying to keep nukes out of the hands of people who would use them on us, and you think that's unconstitutional.

[Emsworth]

Are you radical libertarians keeping up with current events? We're trying to keep nukes out of the hands of people who would use them on us, and you think that's unconstitutional.

That is not a valid argument about whether something is constitutional or not.

Furthermore, we have only argued about federal bans on the possession of nuclear weapons within the United States. Nothing in this argument applies to the activities of the government overseas.

[Giant Saguaro]

Are you radical libertarians keeping up with current events? We're trying to keep nukes out of the hands of people who would use them on us, and you think that's unconstitutional.

That is not a valid argument about whether something is constitutional or not.

It sure as heck is valid because we're talking about the security of America and the American people. And don't tell me security is a non issue when deciding the constitutionality of something, because that's just bullsh*t. It is taken into consideration - all the time.

[Emsworth]

It sure as heck is valid because we're talking about the security of America and the American people.

No, we are talking about the meaning of the Constitution, not about the security of the American people. The former is entirely distinct from the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument "X makes the American people more secure, therefore X is constitutional" is an entirely invalid one. Any number of laws may make the American people more secure; it does not follow that Congress would always have the authority to enact them. Congress may exercise only those powers which have been granted to it. It cannot, under the cloak of acting in the interests of national security, exercise any power it desires.

[Giant Saguaro]

It sure as heck is valid because we're talking about the security of America and the American people.

No, we are talking about the meaning of the Constitution, not about the security of the American people. The former is entirely distinct from the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument "X makes the American people more secure, therefore X is constitutional" is an entirely invalid one. Any number of laws may make the American people more secure; it does not follow that Congress would always have the authority to enact them. Congress may exercise only those powers which have been granted to it. It cannot, under the cloak of acting in the interests of national security, exercise any power it desires.

You have to go on a case-by-case basis. This does involve security.

Second, nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military, as I've argued. Therefore, Congress and the government can regulate them, prohibit people from having them, whatever. Sorry. That's just it. No serious person is going to say otherwise. It's not unconstitutional to ban nukes.

Clearly the burden is on anyone to argue in favor of legalizing nuclear weapons. There is no good erason to do so and every reason to not do so. You people would more than sacrifice homeland security for your own twisted view of the Constitution, which is amazing to me.

As you're dying from nuclear fall-out and as your skin melts off your face, maybe you could find someone to listen to you on how constitutionally lifting a ban on nukes was the right thing to do.

[Emsworth]

Second, nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military, as I've argued. Therefore, Congress and the government can regulate them, prohibit people from having them, whatever..

Let us investigate the clause that allegedly allows Congress to ban nuclear weapons.

The Constitution provides, "The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

In other words, it may govern the armed forces of the United States. Members of the general population, quite clearly, are not a part of the armed forces of the United States. Their activities, therefore, cannot be subject to federal control under this clause.

You assert, "nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military." This proposition, however, is not entirely true. Certain nuclear weapons are a part of the military--those owned by the government. There is no basis for asserting that a hypothetical privately owned nuclear weapon is automatically a part of the military, automatically controlled by the government.

On the whole, private people are not a part of the land or naval forces. Privately owned nuclear weapons are not a part of the land or naval forces. Thus, it emerges with an elegant inevitability that private ownership of nuclear weapons is not subject to regulation under this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I have said that a federal ban on nuclear weapons is unconstitutional. I have never said anything about whether it should be unconstitutional, or about state legislation on the subject.

Obviously, I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be legal. I merely hold that the illegality must be due to state law, not federal law.

As you're dying from nuclear fall-out and as your skin melts off your face, maybe you could find someone to listen to you on how constitutionally lifting a ban on nukes was the right thing to do.

Argumentum ad consequentiam

[Giant Saguaro]

Second, nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military, as I've argued. Therefore, Congress and the government can regulate them, prohibit people from having them, whatever..

Let us investigate the clause that allegedly allows Congress to ban nuclear weapons.

The Constitution provides, "The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

In other words, it may govern the armed forces of the United States. Members of the general population, quite clearly, are not a part of the armed forces of the United States. Their activities, therefore, cannot be subject to federal control under this clause.

You assert, "nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military." This proposition, however, is not entirely true. Certain nuclear weapons are a part of the military--those owned by the government. There is no basis for asserting that a hypothetical privately owned nuclear weapon is automatically a part of the military, automatically controlled by the government.

On the whole, private people are not a part of the land or naval forces. Privately owned nuclear weapons are not a part of the land or naval forces. Thus, it emerges with an elegant inevitability that private ownership of nuclear weapons is not subject to regulation under this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I have said that a federal ban on nuclear weapons is unconstitutional. I have never said anything about whether it should be unconstitutional, or about state legislation on the subject.

As you're dying from nuclear fall-out and as your skin melts off your face, maybe you could find someone to listen to you on how constitutionally lifting a ban on nukes was the right thing to do.

Argumentum ad consequentiam

We agree to disagree.

A disaster would be inevitable if people could own nukes. That's just how it is. If you can't accept that we can't argue about it. Nukes are weapons that only certified, specifically educated and specially trained people can work with - if you can't accept that they are too dangerous for the average person, we can't argue, and you're not in reality, plain and simple.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Members of the general population, quite clearly, are not a part of the armed forces of the United States. Their activities, therefore, cannot be subject to federal control under this clause.

Whoa there bucko.  When you discuss the 2nd amendment, you claim that the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to everyone (which I would generally agree with) even though the Constitution specifies first that this right is a part of a "well regulated militia".

But now, you claim that members of the general population are "clearly" not a part of said militia.

What gives?

[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.


Now, on the subject, I'm pretty much with Everette - it's probably unconstitutional, but I don't really mind the ban. I would think the founding fathers would have added a clause allowing a federal ban on such weapons if they had known such things would exist. If someone did successfully challenge the ban in court, you should expect there to be an amendment passed rather quickly.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A disaster would be inevitable if people could own nukes. That's just how it is. If you can't accept that we can't argue about it. Nukes are weapons that only certified, specifically educated and specially trained people can work with - if you can't accept that they are too dangerous for the average person, we can't argue, and you're not in reality, plain and simple.

AMEN!!!   Its sad that we even have to argue about these things.  I never realized there were people out there that were crazy enough to oppose the federal government prohibiting private citizens from owning nuclear weapons.

[Emsworth]

A disaster would be inevitable if people could own nukes. That's just how it is. If you can't accept that we can't argue about it. Nukes are weapons that only certified, specifically educated and specially trained people can work with - if you can't accept that they are too dangerous for the average person, we can't argue, and you're not in reality, plain and simple.

As I said, I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be legal. I perfectly agree that they should be banned. My only point is this: the bans should be imposed by the states, not the federal government.

Whoa there bucko.  When you discuss the 2nd amendment, you claim that the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to everyone (which I would generally agree with) even though the Constitution specifies first that this right is a part of a "well regulated militia".

But now, you claim that members of the general population are "clearly" not a part of said militia.

The "militia" and the "and and naval forces" are two completely different things. The former is a term that includes the general public, but the latter includes only the military.

[Everett]

Now, on the subject, I'm pretty much with Everette - it's probably unconstitutional, but I don't really mind the ban. I would think the founding fathers would have added a clause allowing a federal ban on such weapons if they had known such things would exist. If someone did successfully challenge the ban in court, you should expect there to be an amendment passed rather quickly.

Off-Topic: My professor once mentioned what would have likely happened if there had been nuclear weapons back in the 1700s-1800s. Then he commented on the possibility of that having happened had Archimedes successfully invented Calculus, or something. Needless to say, it was absolutely hilarious. "Remember everyone, be thankful that Archimedes got killed by a Roman soldier - it could well be why we're alive today." Somehow, I don't think that the revolutionists back then would have been so careful about using nukes against the British, and it's most likely a good thing that the founding fathers didn't know what nuclear weapons were.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

As I said, I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be legal. I perfectly agree that they should be banned. My only point is this: the bans should be imposed by the states, not the federal government.

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

[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.


Now, on the subject, I'm pretty much with Everette - it's probably unconstitutional, but I don't really mind the ban. I would think the founding fathers would have added a clause allowing a federal ban on such weapons if they had known such things would exist. If someone did successfully challenge the ban in court, you should expect there to be an amendment passed rather quickly.

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 like to look at implications beyond the letter of the law sifted through my own little filter. There is no way that I can be convinced that a federal ban on nukes is unconstitutional.