Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

..{hey look over there}...

Happy Monkey was asking where you stand, MaggieL, not what the law says. You say you aren't on the slope. If not, where are you? He acknowledged that there are restrictions on owning nukes. Listing those restrictions doesn't answer the question.

In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?

Yes, although that highly hypothetical strawman isn't high on my list of unconstitutional weapons prohibitions to worry about.

Much higher are the liberals who want to confiscate the much more ordinary weapons that I actually do have (and could actually use in justified self-defense without causing megadeaths of collateral damage, most likely including myself) on the specious theory that doing so will somehow reduce violent crime.

I think there's a lot of provisions of the National Firearms Act that are unconstitutional too. The Pennsylvania State Police maintans a gun registry that's forbidden by an explicit statue. There's lots of gun laws that suck mightily, but I try to reserve my attention for the ones that matter most.

For example, why does "full faith and credit" apply to drivers licences, but not to gun licences and marriage licences? (It's interesting that both gun licencing and marriage licencing were invented to instiutionalize racial discrimination...perhaps that's why somehow Article IV, Section 1 is ignored in those cases)

We hear the "nuke" strawman trotted out every so often to get us onto the slippery slope of "some weapons should be prohibited", and start the old prohibitionist salami game category by category. The folks behind the Clinton Gun Ban admitted quite openly that that was exactly what they intended to do.

Wouldn't anybody who assembling a nuke be arrested under the "risking a catastrophe" statutes? It's not necessary to sacrifice the Second Amendment principle to address this mostly imaginary "problem".