Timothy Birdnow

Yesterday I was listening to the radio and a discussion about the right to bear arms was playing. The topic of nuclear arms came up; do Americans have the right to own nuclear weapons as part of the Second Amendment? After all, the Second Amendment is there to give Americans the tools to overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. As the U.S. has nukes, doesn't that mean the People have a right to them too?

Several points to ponder about that.

First, the argument CAN be made against nukes as an anti-government weapon. Nuclear devices cannot be targeted specifically against a group. There can be no non-combatants when you detonate nukes; they kill indiscriminantly, in massive numbers. As such they would be poor weapons of revolution.

In many ways this is a straw-man argument to dismiss the idea of bearing arms to rebel against tyranny. The people using it know that.

But to get back to the nukes, you aren't going to take a country back by blowing it up. You might be able to blow up Washington, but you are going to kill millions of innocent people in the process. In that regard there certainly would be no MORAL justification for such a weapon.

But there is certainly a legal right. That is true of all weapons. The long rifle or handgun poses no danger to anyone whatsoever in the hands of a careful and morally virtuous person. It becomes a menace in the hands of bad people, or irresponsible people. So the liberal solution is to ban them - except to leave them in the hands of government, a government they hope to control and thus utilize those weapons to their own advantage.

But a virtuous populace makes those tools (and that is what they are) a positive social value. They deter crime. They keep the government from overrunning the public. They are a societal good.

And like all freedoms they can cut. Certainly free speech can be very dangerous. So too can freedom of religion (you might worship the Devil, say) or freedom of the press, or the right to assemble. Anything in life is dangerous if misused.

So possession of a nuclear weapon is not immoral nor is it Constitutionally illegal. If you don't set it off there is absolutely nothing wrong with possessing such a device.

BUT

Such a thing would be a high value target for terrorists and as such presents a public danger. And while accidental detonation would be unlikely it theoretically could happen, I suppose. It's a bit more of a risk than letting someone have a midnight special on their nightstand.

Of course, talking about private ownership of nuclear weapons is largely a moot point anyway; nobody can afford to get them. It takes enormous resources to build one, and purchasing one is cost-prohibitive. Nobody has a real need for a nuke. So this discussion is moot.

But it touches on something else that needs thinking about.

CRISPR technology is growing cheaper and cheaper and genetic splicing, recombinant DNA manipulation is easily in the realm of the possible for citizens of fair means. With this technology and a little know-how terrible, dreadful biological weapons can be made in your basement.

The first law against home genetic manipulation was put into effect in 2019. That law "strongly suggests" you don't splice genes, and makes a minor effort at suppressing the purchase of gene-splicing equipment.

This law is little more than a restriction on selling bazookas to children.

So we already have an example of a technology that has the potential of wiping out half the planet in private hands. We have seen no calamity as of yet. The only example of recombinant DNA possibly used as a weapon was the Wuhan virus/Covid 19 and THAT was funded by the United States government and deployed by the Red Chinese.

It seems to me private ownership of nuclear weapons would not mean a disaster.

Again, this is all speculation as the chances of these weapons being owned by private individuals is nil, or nearly so. And the case can be made for reasonable restrictions. This is a far cry from gun control, or a violation of the Second Amendment.

I can just picture it now; some '30's style gangsters trying to rob a bank by hauling the 10,800 lb. Fat Man into the First National Bank and proclaiming "toin over da money or da city gets it, youse guys!"

Crimes and revolutions are more easily done with bullets than plutonium bombs.

At any rate, Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated "hard cases make bad law". This is an extremely hard case, and one not intended to do anything but make a reductio-ad-absurdum argument against the right to keep and bear arms. It's fundamentally dishonest. If the government has the right to keep and bear any sort of arms then so does the public, and they know it.

Perhaps nobody should have these things? Let's start with the government getting rid of theirs and then I'll turn in my nuclear stockpile.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:32 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 854 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Remember how Dementia Joe insists, in spite of the facts, that civilians are (or were) not allowed to own cannons. Many civilians owned cannons during the Revolutionary War times and provided them for the war effort. But as we know, Joe is terrified at the idea of civilians owning ANY kind of armament. And his fear percolates down through his party.

I had to divest my nukes when we moved a few years ago -- just had no room to store them.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at February 11, 2023 12:47 AM (1KBQw)

2 I remember him saying that Dana. Yeah; he doesn't know his history.

My nuclear arsenal is hidden in the backyard. I figure it's safe as long as the grass guy doesn't run one of the bombs over...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at February 11, 2023 10:02 AM (y88ma)

3 Well, Tim, I'm glad you've still got your nukes. Maybe if I can figure a place to hide some, I can borrow some of yours when you come to visit sometime?

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at February 12, 2023 11:16 PM (1KBQw)

4 Done Dana!  I have a lot to spare...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at February 14, 2023 08:30 AM (7Ae/7)

5 government if necessary. As the U.S. has nukes, doesn't that mean the People have a right to them too?

Posted by: Patek Philippe Replica at May 17, 2023 08:49 PM (SUYyh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment