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.
So you think everyone should be able to own a nuke? Maybe we should just disband government, because a government by it’s mere existence will be able to exert some force over the people. How about abolishing the police? Sounds good to you?
Owning a nuke just serves as a deterrent, thats how they are used today, nations that own them 'hold' them over the heads of other nations, as a means of keeping the peace, or getting what they want.
Its the ultimate " I could wipe your country off the map" if I wanted to (deterrent). It doesnt mean anyone would actually use them against an enemy though, it would take a very dire situation for nukes to be used, so they are not commonly used weapons of war in that regard.
The founding fathers intended for the people to exert power OVER their govt (not the other way around)!
So by your reasoning everyone should own a nuke. If not then you are exerting your force over those who cannot obtain a nuke. Do you think this is a reasonable proposition to put forth? The people are the government. We have checks and balances, show me where they said it is necessary for the people to exert military might over the government.
By recognizing government and law and order, you have agreed to a social contract where there is some power imbalance, now the people can hold their government accountable for unjust laws by our voting process and protest measures. If you think private citizens should have the same weapons as the military I’m afraid that you are too far down the rabbit hole.
Last edited by ecko_complex24; 12-11-2019 at 08:11 AM..
Why do Govts own them? they exist as a threat mostly, to what the country COULD do. Its nuclear arsenal is touted in showing how powerful a country is.
The same thing would be true if the people had nuclear weapons, they would be used as a deterrent, so govt would think twice about creating any unconstitutional laws.
Nukes are the biggest deterrent.
If Churchill could have leveled Berlin in 12 minutes with the push of a button, Hitler would have never bombed London.
Owning a nuke just serves as a deterrent, thats how they are used today, nations that own them 'hold' them over the heads of other nations, as a means of keeping the peace, or getting what they want.
Its the ultimate " I could wipe your country off the map" if I wanted to (deterrent). It doesnt mean anyone would actually use them against an enemy though, it would take a very dire situation for nukes to be used, so they are not commonly used weapons of war in that regard.
I understand this, don’t you think having a governing body concerning the use of these is important. Do you think by allowing private citizens to own them they would need to go through the layers of controls in order to justify the use of said nuke.
Do you think if people owned nukes we can inhibit them from using them on impulse or acts of terrorism, or are you suggesting a governing body that represents the majority of the people and their interests?
The same thing would be true if the people had nuclear weapons, they would be used as a deterrent.....
I'm fairly confident a nuclear bomb in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamist/Christian is going off somewhere. There is no rationale or reasoning with those types of people. As far as the limitations on what you may have as citizen I believe there is very easy way to draw a line. If law enforcement can justify it then the citizen can justify it.
I'm fairly confident a nuclear bomb in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamist/Christian is going off somewhere. As far as the limitations on what you may have as citizen I believe there is very easy way to draw a line. If law enforcement can justify it then the citizen can justify it.
I'm fairly confident a nuclear bomb in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamist/Christian is going off somewhere. There is no rationale or reasoning with those types of people. As far as the limitations on what you may have as citizen I believe there is very easy way to draw a line. If law enforcement can justify it then the citizen can justify it.
I'm fairly confident a nuclear bomb in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamist/Christian is going off somewhere. There is no rationale or reasoning with those types of people. As far as the limitations on what you may have as citizen I believe there is very easy way to draw a line. If law enforcement can justify it then the citizen can justify it.
I'm fairly confident a nuclear bomb in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamist/Christian is going off somewhere. There is no rationale or reasoning with those types of people. As far as the limitations on what you may have as citizen I believe there is very easy way to draw a line. If law enforcement can justify it then the citizen can justify it.
What about a mentally ill person?
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.
