The right to keep and bear nukes
Just because I am against any sort of violation of the right to own and to carry weapons, it doesn't mean I think everyone should have nukes. I'm opposed to anyone owning nuclear weapons-- especially governments. (But I'm also opposed to government employees possessing any sort of weapon while on the "job". They have proven they can never be trusted.)
I can't figure out how anyone could ever use nukes (on Earth, anyway) strictly defensively without damaging the life, liberty, or property of innocents ("collateral damage"). If you can't do something without archating, then it can't be a right.
Yes, I realize possessing nuclear weapons isn't the same as using them. Is not possessing nukes a credible threat to use them, which necessarily means archating? If not, then I'm wrong.
Being against the possession of nuclear weapons doesn't mean I want governments banning them from private hands. That's worse than letting the fox guard the henhouse. Much worse. Government doesn't have the right, nor does it have the imaginary quality called "authority", to forbid others from owning anything, including nuclear weapons.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Man does not want his fellow man to live in peace
Why inventing weapons that destroy humanity is unfortunate
I think it is a pretty false equivalency to compare nukes and guns in the same sentence.
I am definitely for gun rights (to a certain extent), but guns have many useful purposes, such as hunting and entertainment (Alaskans hunt to survive, shooting is even an Olympic sport) and can be regulated to a reasonable degree.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand have absolutely no useful purpose to the general public (possessing small amount of radioactive material for a homemade nuclear generator would be a different discussion) and have the absolute potential for negative consequences. Absolutely no good can come from a person owning a nuclear weapon, with plenty of bad.
But anti-gun bigots compare guns and nukes all the time. That's why I wrote this-- to answer them.
"Reasonable regulation" is an oxymoron. You don't own other people, and have no authority to violate their life, liberty, property, exchanges, or associations. The moment you propose licensing, permits, tax stamps, or bureaucratic oversight over such things, you are a tyrant.
very informative post. i will waiting for post....thanks for sharing a blog.............@dullhawk
you right. i agree with you.
Wow so perfect.
I like in the middle
nice post
Misuse of nuclear/biological weapons. That kinda sounds kinda odd, as that's what they were created to be used for, blowing the shit out of you and I'm glad about that they are not used.
And really, there is little to no point in being afraid of them. You can't do much, should you happen to hear that a Tsar bomb was just launched into your house. :P And also people might say nuclear energy can be used as alternative to coal for energy generation. There is little support across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a 2011 poll for the BBC indicates. Just 22% agreed that "nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants". In contrast, 71% thought their country "could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind". Globally, 39% want to continue using existing reactors without building new ones, while 30% would like to shut everything down now.
Solar and wind power are also pretty environmentally horrible. Just look at the byproducts of manufacturing solar panels, and the vast land use requirements. It's gotten to the point here that you can't look any direction without seeing wind generators, and seeing what they do to the land they are placed on (and there are other bad factors, too, such as the fact that they are all government subsidized-- with stolen money, of course-- because they don't pay their own way).
I believe ignorance is the main cause of people not wanting nuclear power generation, plus the fact that people mix the generators up with nuclear weapons. If you want electricity, there is going to be a downside.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-- Second Amendment to the US Constitution
There is a good argument to be made that the 2A provides for members of the militia to keep and bear Arms without actually owning them. This would be similar to Switzerland's militia system (, in which (almost) all adults are issued a regulation weapon by the government. There were instances in the early Republic in which Congress appropriated funds to arm militias, and certainly the United States retains ownership of the arms issued to the National Guard today.
People who had just gone through a war against the most powerful military on the planet weren't going to trust a government with all the guns.
Plus, all the Bill of Rights did was list some things that it was illegal for government to ever do. If you look at the writings of those who wrote and signed the Constitution it is clear they knew the right to keep and bear arms (own and carry weapons) was superior to any government "laws" and pre-existed any government.
Also, the contemporary writers made clear that they understood "the militia" to be all men between certain ages (the ages where the ability to fight would be most developed and useful), and that it had nothing to do with being employed by government, and certainly didn't hinge on being under government control.
The Second Amendment didn't give any rights, it took away illegitimate government "authority".