4 ms·

> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools whi

by cozos 7y ago

> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment. I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines#Military_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_subst...

Proziam 7y ago
My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believe I have the right to restrict what another human being can or cannot put into their body.
- mattashii 7y ago
  EU citizen here. > My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms? As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precise munitions and firearms to the best of my knowledge are not. Yes, they can be used as a threat, but the same can be said for nukes.
  - TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
    Munitions and firearms make both extreme tyranny and invasion untenable with the application of asymmetric warfare strategies, thus aiding significantly in the defense of the nation.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    Essentially it boils down to this: If someone breaks into your home, you can reliably combat the intruder with a firearm - without harming a bystander. If someone is attacking your town or village, you can at least situationally combat them with precision-guided munitions without killing any civilians (not that they are used ethically in all cases, just speaking to their potential use). Neither of those things is true of WMDs. You have to stretch the bounds of realism pretty far before you can find a way to deploy a nuke effectively without killing innocent people, or yourself.

by cozos 7y ago

Proziam 7y ago

My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believe I have the right to restrict what another human being can or cannot put into their body.

mattashii 7y ago
EU citizen here. > My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms? As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precise munitions and firearms to the best of my knowledge are not. Yes, they can be used as a threat, but the same can be said for nukes.
- TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
  Munitions and firearms make both extreme tyranny and invasion untenable with the application of asymmetric warfare strategies, thus aiding significantly in the defense of the nation.
- Proziam 7y ago
  Essentially it boils down to this: If someone breaks into your home, you can reliably combat the intruder with a firearm - without harming a bystander. If someone is attacking your town or village, you can at least situationally combat them with precision-guided munitions without killing any civilians (not that they are used ethically in all cases, just speaking to their potential use). Neither of those things is true of WMDs. You have to stretch the bounds of realism pretty far before you can find a way to deploy a nuke effectively without killing innocent people, or yourself.