Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [j g d] at [dixie.com] (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: RKBA != personal nukes
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 06:11:40 GMT

[v--c--t] at [cad.gatech.edu] (Vincent Fox) writes:

>About once every 2 weeks, some clueless newbie wanders in and asks
>"Don't you wacked-out right-wing murdering Right to Keep and Bear Arms
>proponents advocate everyone be required to own heavy weapons up to
>and including nuclear weapons?" 

>The short answer is no. Environmental lawyer David B. Kopel had a good short
>section in his monograph "The Assault Weapon Panic: Political Correctness
>Takes Aim at the Constitution" from pages 44-45. Levinson is better
>but much longer.

[Convoluted rationalization of restricting some but not all military
weapons deleted]

Sorry, Vincent, I must disagree.  The second amendment, like all 
amendments in the bill of rights, was written to encompass all weapons
without exception.  The founding fathers were wise enough to realize 
advances would be made in weapons design just as they realized advances
in the technology involved in free speech would advance.  Yet they
chose - intentionally - NOT to restrict or qualify the right.  (The argument
about "bearing" is irrelevant to nukes because any number of nukes are
man-portable and most warheads are "bearable" by a sqaud.)  Why?  Easy.
They realized that the moment the government acquires weapons superior to
those owned by the people, the end of freedom is only a question of time.
I submit as Exhibit A the government's practices of civil forfeiture, 
mass murder and general official lawlessness as evidence.  I further submit
that the 2nd amendment protects the right of any citizen to own any 
military weapon up to and including nuclear weapons.  One cannot honestly
argue any other way.  Splintering the English language in order to 
achieve a (perhaps) desirable goal is very dangerous.  Today nukes, tomorrow
assault weapons, then evil semi-automatic guns and one day all firearms.

Note that I do not argue the desirability of private citizens owning 
nuclear weapons.  Quite the contrary.  I shudder at the thought of 
someone who can't program a VCR owning a nuke.  (Well maybe not. 
With that level of technical competence, detonation would be impossible.)
The PROPER way to handle this situation along with chemical and biological
weapons is to amend the constitution.  Imagine that!  Just like almost 
a century ago when the government still had a sliver of respect for
the Constitution and amended it to ban booze.  Modern government, of course,
doesn't want to bothered with such nettlesom procedures so it just 
grabs power and bans guns, drugs, freon and thousands of other substances.
Meanwhile we just sit around bitching.  And justifying such actions.
Sad.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance cars?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
[j g d] at [dixie.com]                        | [p--f--m] at [dixie.com] for a free sample mag
The Great Tragedy of the 20th century is that Clinton's name isn't on the Wall.