Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1.you are aware that most small nuclear weapons cost at least 20 million. so that is well out of the price range of the common man.
Didn't realize that 2nd Amendment concerns were limited to the "common man."
Quote:
3. John Locke states that the theory of natural rights operates under the belief that people have a right to be secure in their life and property. Using a weapon as indiscriminate as a nuclear weapon deprives the innocent of their right to life and thus is in contradiction to the founding principles of our nation.
What no limited nuclear strike against the the oppressive government say, the Capital or perhaps a local military base... blown up in the name of tearing apart the tools of oppression and all that good stuff.
One patriots truck bomb is just a nuclear strike to another.
But, there have to some limits. Do you believe that citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons capable of destroying the world? Such weapons could clearly be defined as "arms."
STRAWMAN alert!
First off, a nuclear weapon is not quite a bearable "arm".
Secondly which nuclear weapon is it that is capable of destroying the world?
Heck, even if all the nukes in all of the countries were to surface detonate the world would not be destroyed! You seem to know little about anything yet seem so emotionally tied to your "talking points"!
The whole 2nd Amendment/Nuke point is a liberal red herring. First of all, the founders implicitly distinguished between individual and non-individual arms in article 1, section 8, which covers "letters of marque." Letters of marque was in essence authorization for deployment of WMD of the time.
Secondly, where do libs draw the line on the other end? According to the DOJ, more people are killed with fists and feet every year than "assault weapons." Does liberal logic then dictate mandatory amputations of fists and feet?
The whole 2nd Amendment/Nuke point is a liberal red herring. First of all, the founders implicitly distinguished between individual and non-individual arms in article 1, section 8, which covers "letters of marque." Letters of marque was in essence authorization for deployment of WMD of the time.
Secondly, where do libs draw the line on the other end? According to the DOJ, more people are killed with fists and feet every year than "assault weapons." Does liberal logic then dictate mandatory amputations of fists and feet?
Breaking federal laws is a good reason.
They are part of the US, comply with the law of the land.
You know.
When the law is unjust or immortal is should not be followed. it has lost and just and logical reason for it to have the power of the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
it is not the law of the land, it is a infringement of the law of the land IE the bill of rights.
they should not only get there money, but they should have the rights under the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 10th Amendments to pursue the happiness of their choice,
When the law is unjust or immortal is should not be followed. it has lost and just and logical reason for it to have the power of the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
it is not the law of the land, it is a infringement of the law of the land IE the bill of rights.
they should not only get there money, but they should have the rights under the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 10th Amendments to pursue the happiness of their choice,
the supremacy clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
10TH amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
tell me something the laws once said slavery was legal, did that make it right? it also upheld discrimination and segregation, did that make it right to infringe upon the natural rights of others under a flawed and ideological premise?
the supremacy clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
10TH amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
tell me something the laws once said slavery was legal, did that make it right? it also upheld discrimination and segregation, did that make it right to infringe upon the natural rights of others under a flawed and ideological premise?
Makes me wonder - what if a governor stated that no National Guard troops from his or her state would be deployed to Syria, and based that on 10th amendment grounds?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
