4 ms·

I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who thinks there should be a right to privately own nuclear weapons. Basically everybody agrees there should be limits on

I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who thinks there should be a right to privately own nuclear weapons. Basically everybody agrees there should be limits on the Second Amendment, the only real disagreement is where.

ty6853 2y ago
You can amend the constitution to allow infringing on nuclear arms. Not super difficult if everyone agrees. Elon Musk has far worse than these explosives just by deorbiting at the appropriately scary trajectory.
- wat10000 2y ago
  If you think anything Elon Musk has would even come close to holding a candle to a W88, you’re out of your mind.
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    He could just put a bunch of metal rods in space and then drop them on his enemies, Bond-villain style. I’m not totally convinced he would though.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      It still wouldn't be remotely close to the power of any of our nuclear weapons.
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      IIRC this is basically the premise behind The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I guess that makes it Heinlein-revolutionary style?
- Aloisius 2y ago
  The Constitution also says the courts interpret the law and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean there are limits. You can amend the Constitution to forbid the Supreme Court from interpreting it to allow for unhindered access to weapons of mass destruction. Not super difficult if everyone agrees. Moreover, Elon Musk can not launch anything with enough mass to come remotely close to the yield on even a small nuclear weapon. Kinetic bombardment of say, a 200 Mg tungsten rod from orbit, impacting Earth, would have a yield equivalent to only ~350 tons of TNT.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    > Elon Musk can not launch anything with enough mass to come remotely close to the yield on even a small nuclear weapon. To be fair to the Second Amdendment supremacist, he only compared the sattelite deorbit with the explosive arsenal of the wacko the FBI arrested, not tot nuclear weapons.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      > courts that routinely violate rights You should do a deeper reading of the Constitution and the role the courts play. I think you’re quite confused.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        You seem confused. The founders believed right to keep and bear arms is god given and recognized this in the constitution as a backstop against tyranny of the courts or any branch of government. They did not anticipate the courts decision to necessarily be final or correct.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution, which they did and they do. I didn't claim the courts' decisions are necessarily "final or correct." I'm saying if you believe that courts are routinely violating rights then you don't know how rights are derived in this country.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Founders didn't believe rights were derived from the courts or any part of government.
- sgarland 2y ago
  There isn’t a chance in hell we’d get enough states to agree to modify 2A in any way, shape, or form. The amendment could explicitly say, “no private citizen may own or otherwise have in their personal possession nuclear weapons with a yield >= 1 kT,” and red states would still loudly complain that it was a slippery slope to banning personal firearm possession. Jefferson was right when he said the Constitution should be rewritten once per generation.
magic_smoke_ee 2y ago
Yeah. I don't think even Brandon Herrera would advocate for privately-owned WMDs. Perhaps the initial and continual suitable personal stability and trustworthiness for owning different categories of mass-casualty-capable weapons should be sensibility and increasingly regulated appropriately. Honestly, I think there should be a limited number of gun clubs that require continual vouching/sponsorship to retain access to certain categories of weapons. Letting randos amass 100 AKs with bumpstocks just seems insane.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> the only real disagreement is where. They don't want to draw a line because that's hard so they eliminate the line and we end up with ridiculous logic like the right to bear nuclear weapons.
solidsnack9000 2y ago
This is not really an interesting line of discussion because all the relevant regulations regarding classified information, materials handling, and industrial safety would be enough to effectively prohibit possession of nuclear arms, without any reference to arms at all. I'm not sure we even have any laws explicitly prohibiting possession of nuclear weapons -- most of the material I've found so far on the subject in the CFR is about "special nuclear materials". Most of the interesting policy area regarding the right to bear arms is actually in bearable arms -- small arms and light weapons. Although it is legal to own a tank, for example, this is not of much practical impact.
jasomill 2y ago
I say sure, let private citizens own nuclear weapons, provided they comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and treaty obligations, and are willing to foot the bill for all construction, maintenance, handling, and compliance costs. In other words, all other things being equal, if wealthy private citizens want to fund the Departments of Energy and Defense over and above their tax obligations, who am I to complain? It's not like the DoE doesn't already employ private contractors in a wide variety of nuclear security roles[1]. [1] http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=13974444011931 http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=1397444401...

ty6853 2y ago

You can amend the constitution to allow infringing on nuclear arms. Not super difficult if everyone agrees. Elon Musk has far worse than these explosives just by deorbiting at the appropriately scary trajectory.

wat10000 2y ago
If you think anything Elon Musk has would even come close to holding a candle to a W88, you’re out of your mind.
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  He could just put a bunch of metal rods in space and then drop them on his enemies, Bond-villain style. I’m not totally convinced he would though.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    It still wouldn't be remotely close to the power of any of our nuclear weapons.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    IIRC this is basically the premise behind The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I guess that makes it Heinlein-revolutionary style?
Aloisius 2y ago
The Constitution also says the courts interpret the law and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean there are limits. You can amend the Constitution to forbid the Supreme Court from interpreting it to allow for unhindered access to weapons of mass destruction. Not super difficult if everyone agrees. Moreover, Elon Musk can not launch anything with enough mass to come remotely close to the yield on even a small nuclear weapon. Kinetic bombardment of say, a 200 Mg tungsten rod from orbit, impacting Earth, would have a yield equivalent to only ~350 tons of TNT.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  > Elon Musk can not launch anything with enough mass to come remotely close to the yield on even a small nuclear weapon. To be fair to the Second Amdendment supremacist, he only compared the sattelite deorbit with the explosive arsenal of the wacko the FBI arrested, not tot nuclear weapons.
- ty6853 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    > courts that routinely violate rights You should do a deeper reading of the Constitution and the role the courts play. I think you’re quite confused.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      You seem confused. The founders believed right to keep and bear arms is god given and recognized this in the constitution as a backstop against tyranny of the courts or any branch of government. They did not anticipate the courts decision to necessarily be final or correct.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution, which they did and they do. I didn't claim the courts' decisions are necessarily "final or correct." I'm saying if you believe that courts are routinely violating rights then you don't know how rights are derived in this country.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Founders didn't believe rights were derived from the courts or any part of government.
sgarland 2y ago
There isn’t a chance in hell we’d get enough states to agree to modify 2A in any way, shape, or form. The amendment could explicitly say, “no private citizen may own or otherwise have in their personal possession nuclear weapons with a yield >= 1 kT,” and red states would still loudly complain that it was a slippery slope to banning personal firearm possession. Jefferson was right when he said the Constitution should be rewritten once per generation.

magic_smoke_ee 2y ago

Yeah. I don't think even Brandon Herrera would advocate for privately-owned WMDs. Perhaps the initial and continual suitable personal stability and trustworthiness for owning different categories of mass-casualty-capable weapons should be sensibility and increasingly regulated appropriately. Honestly, I think there should be a limited number of gun clubs that require continual vouching/sponsorship to retain access to certain categories of weapons. Letting randos amass 100 AKs with bumpstocks just seems insane.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> the only real disagreement is where. They don't want to draw a line because that's hard so they eliminate the line and we end up with ridiculous logic like the right to bear nuclear weapons.

solidsnack9000 2y ago

This is not really an interesting line of discussion because all the relevant regulations regarding classified information, materials handling, and industrial safety would be enough to effectively prohibit possession of nuclear arms, without any reference to arms at all. I'm not sure we even have any laws explicitly prohibiting possession of nuclear weapons -- most of the material I've found so far on the subject in the CFR is about "special nuclear materials". Most of the interesting policy area regarding the right to bear arms is actually in bearable arms -- small arms and light weapons. Although it is legal to own a tank, for example, this is not of much practical impact.

jasomill 2y ago

I say sure, let private citizens own nuclear weapons, provided they comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and treaty obligations, and are willing to foot the bill for all construction, maintenance, handling, and compliance costs. In other words, all other things being equal, if wealthy private citizens want to fund the Departments of Energy and Defense over and above their tax obligations, who am I to complain? It's not like the DoE doesn't already employ private contractors in a wide variety of nuclear security roles[1]. [1] http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=13974444011931 http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=1397444401...