[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why?"

If the Soviet Union had them, then unfortunately we needed them.

You have it the other way around. We had nukes before the Soviet Union did. And we used them before the USSR had them. By your reasoning, Russia should be justified in having nukes--as a deterrent. So also should NK and Iran be justified in having nukes for the same reason. And, are we, being the first to have and use them, justified in our owning them when we used them not for deterrence against being nuked, but as an offensive military weapon against those that didn't have them? And is everyone else justified in having them as deterrence against us?

They "why", and you already know this so I don't know why you're asking, is for deterrence.

Similar to nukes being a deterrent to a hostile foreign government using them against us, the "why" for the 2A is essentially for deterrence against a government tyrannizing us. But you don't seem to know that, perhaps, because you think its "why" is for hunting, and sports, and self protection from criminals.

"Could you bear (carry) a nuke?"

Maybe. Do they fit in suitcases? Missiles don't, but maybe a bomb does?

So who should own and carry a suitcase nuke?

You're being silly just to be contrarian.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out how silly you are in using ownership of nukes as an instance of how the 2A is not absolute.

" do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A"

Yes you know what I mean. I mean there are limits. I should not be allowed to keep and bear a fully automatic rile, and carry it around in a nursery school. Since I presume you agree with that statement, that means we both agree that the 2A is not absolute.

I agree that if a nursery school did not want anyone to bring a gun of any kind onto its property, the 2A does not give me the right to do so. How is that an example of the original 2A being not absolute. The 2A never gave anyone the absolute right to do so. It is inherent in the constitutional framework of rights that such an absolute right does not exist. That there is no absolute right even to enter someone else's property without permission. You're setting up a silly strawman argument.

Pointing out that a constitutional right is not absolute should not be used as an argument that any abrogation of that right is therefor justified. The abrogation must address that right as sui generis and must argue strictly on the constitutional reason for that particular right. Bringing in extraneous comparisons not apropos to the amendment is a means to limit or destroy it outside of constitutional procedure to do so.

We just need to figure out where to draw the line. If we can move that line in a way that doesn't surrender what I would call basic freedoms

Are what you consider "basic freedoms" the same as those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? If so, then the line is already drawn. Drawing a new line, moving the goal posts, so to speak, entirely changes the game. Every new line drawn rewrites the rules, creates a new constitution.

(who needs bump stocks or high capacity magazines except for Rambo wannabees), and saves a few lives, we should have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of that.

Your disparaging, sarcastic Rambo wannabees portrayal does not presage a rational discussion. If the old line drawn was that the 2A's reason for existing is to deter tyrannical government from abridging or denying unalienable rights, and the new lines drawn are that the 2A exists as a courtesy which government grants to hunters, sportsmen, and self protection against criminals, then what rational discussion can there be regarding bump stocks and high capacity magazines?

But we can't have a rational conversation, because the pro-2A fanatics claim that if we do that today, then tomorrow we necessarily surrender handguns and hunting rifles and swiss army knives and slingshots. Not even maniacs like Chris Murphy are going that far, there is no chance that will ever happen, and if that's the best argument you can come up with, then you lose the debate, because it's not a rational argument, it's tin foil hat paranoia.

Your disparaging "pro-2A fanatics" characterization is ironic considering your fanaticism on this subject.

The most important pro-2A position is the harmful precedence that changes meaning in constitutional text. It is THAT precedence that makes possible tomorrow the things you say will never happen.

What you pose as a debate is, at heart, whether the Constitution is the rock solid law of the land, or if it is subject to the whims of the moment. If you don't consider that a rational proposition, we have little, if any, grounds for a rational discussion.

And if you propose that destroying the Constitution in order to save one life is noble, or compassionate, or just, or good, then, it would seem to me, that you consider the destruction of freedom for millions, present and future, is justified, noble, compassionate, and good if it saves one life. Those millions, in my opinion, would think that you grossly let your heart rule your brain. And they would not appreciate your compassion, or ultimate lack of it.