Does the 2nd Amendment include Nuclear Arms and Biological Weapons...

desert dude said:

What does, "bear arms" mean? It means to carry. Hard to carry a nuke.

Not that it matters in these endless discussions with hoplophobes. If you don't like guns or you are just afraid of guns, then don't own one. Frighten your children with them. Leave the rational public alone.

Click to expand...

so you flip flopped? you used to say the second lets you have nukes. vacillating coot.

desert dude said:

What does, "bear arms" mean? It means to carry. Hard to carry a nuke.

Click to expand...

Not really. Ever heard of suitcase nukes?

FlyLikeAnEagle said:

Not really. Ever heard of suitcase nukes?

Click to expand...

does desert douche ever open his mouth and not utter something completely retarded?

he's on quite a roll lately.

FlyLikeAnEagle said:

Not really. Ever heard of suitcase nukes?

Click to expand...

I am almost certain this is a fake. This model I mean. If you look at the requirements for U-235, I don't think a 60+ kg carry is in the cards. That includes no shielding, remember. Also the way you do this, in a pipe bomb, is to create 2 perfect hemispheres, at slightly above, (not too much!!!) exactly 1/2 critical mass each. This hemisphere is 170 mm across for U-235. Not that picture, to be sure.

It has to be assemble so that the pieces can never even be near each other. A blue flash of death ray occurs.

The 2 pieces are then slapped together by explosives at each end of the pipe. Each surface must be mirror smooth, flat and parallel to each other at the instant of impact. The explosive pressure creates the tamper, and increases the instantaneous, density very dramatically, so the mass is now well over critical. BOOM.

[h=2]Critical mass of a bare sphere[/h]
Top: A sphere of fissile material is too small to allow the chain reaction to become self-sustaining as neutrons generated by fissions can too easily escape.

Middle: By increasing the mass of the sphere to a critical mass, the reaction can become self-sustaining.

Bottom: Surrounding the original sphere with a neutron reflector increases the efficiency of the reactions and also allows the reaction to become self-sustaining.



The shape with minimal critical mass and the smallest physical dimensions is a sphere. Bare-sphere critical masses at normal density of some actinides are listed in the following table.

desert dude said:

What does, "bear arms" mean? It means to carry. Hard to carry a nuke.

Not that it matters in these endless discussions with hoplophobes. If you don't like guns or you are just afraid of guns, then don't own one. Frighten your children with them. Leave the rational public alone.

Click to expand...

So a backpack nuke? What about a crew mounted weapon or a Ma Deuce? Are those covered? I do believe in the days of the Founding Fathers you could own cannons, so does that mean artillery pieces? And since you can carry chemical and biological weapons, it must be safe to assume they are covered using your definition. What about explosives? Grenades, RPGs, and other things like that? What about a grenade launcher? They are able to be carried so they must be covered.

spandy said:

Go ahead and go get yourself a nuke, let me know how it works out for you when the rest of the world finds out, because they will find out. Maybe ask North Korea how well it has gone for them in their nuclear adventures, maybe you could get some pointers, maybe even meet Rodman.

Or maybe you could prop a good rifle up in your closet with a little ammo and hope your neighbors keep their cool if things ever got shitty, for their sake.

Click to expand...

Well if I did, I am sure the Teabaggers would support me. It is freedom and this is 'Merica. But the fact is that they would be against the world stopping me because the UN would get involved and that would mean Obama is coming to take their guns. Either way, so what is covered and what is not covered by the 2nd?

TheGreenMaester said:

So a backpack nuke? What about a crew mounted weapon or a Ma Deuce? Are those covered? I do believe in the days of the Founding Fathers you could own cannons, so does that mean artillery pieces? And since you can carry chemical and biological weapons, it must be safe to assume they are covered using your definition. What about explosives? Grenades, RPGs, and other things like that? What about a grenade launcher? They are able to be carried so they must be covered.

Click to expand...

How about pocket knives and nail clippers? Num chuks? Scary pictures? Recordings of loud scolding voices? Where do we draw the line for the safety of the children?

TheGreenMaester said:

So a backpack nuke? What about a crew mounted weapon or a Ma Deuce? Are those covered? I do believe in the days of the Founding Fathers you could own cannons, so does that mean artillery pieces? And since you can carry chemical and biological weapons, it must be safe to assume they are covered using your definition. What about explosives? Grenades, RPGs, and other things like that? What about a grenade launcher? They are able to be carried so they must be covered.

Click to expand...

Think infantry, militia. Anything that is a squad weapon can be owned by Federal permit, including grenades, rocket launchers. But, squad weapons are attack weapons, not defense. The open carry, castle doctrine, 2nd A covers defensive.

TheGreenMaester said:

So a backpack nuke? What about a crew mounted weapon or a Ma Deuce? Are those covered? I do believe in the days of the Founding Fathers you could own cannons, so does that mean artillery pieces? And since you can carry chemical and biological weapons, it must be safe to assume they are covered using your definition. What about explosives? Grenades, RPGs, and other things like that? What about a grenade launcher? They are able to be carried so they must be covered.

Click to expand...

So, what does the second amendment mean? Does it mean that American citizens are prohibited from owning and/or carrying weapons of any kind? Enlighten us.

Not trying to bash anyone here but trying to apply a text from the 18th century today is plain wrong. I'm not discussing or refuting the content of that text but things have changed since then.
The founding fathers where not some divinely inspired individuals but rather politicians, with all the associated shortcomings inherent to that period in time.

George Washington for example owned three hundred slaves, today he'd be arrested as a nut.

Again I'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings but wondering if a particular ammendement covers nuclear weapons is borderline insane.

History as teached in schools is selective and partial and the consequences of such teachings are tremenduous in their effects.

If some elements of the Bill of Rights are justified today it's all good, but elements that doesn't apply anymore due to a change in context should be put aside.

Selah said:

Not trying to bash anyone here but trying to apply a text from the 18th century today is plain wrong. I'm not discussing or refuting the content of that text but things have changed since then.
The founding fathers where not some divinely inspired individuals but rather politicians, with all the associated shortcomings inherent to that period in time.

George Washington for example owned three hundred slaves, today he'd be arrested as a nut.

Again I'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings but wondering if a particular ammendement covers nuclear weapons is borderline insane.

History as teached in schools is selective and partial and the consequences of such teachings are tremenduous in their effects.

If some elements of the Bill of Rights are justified today it's all good, but elements that doesn't apply anymore due to a change in context should be put aside.

Click to expand...

So what about free speech?

Right to assemble?

Right to vote?

They're all just antiquated notions from a time long past? Or are they "worthwhile"'because they serve you directly?

And what about the people who feel the 2nd is what gives authority to the rest of the bill of rights? Would you ignore them because your opinion differs? What if Obama decided the rights listed above are worth ignoring simply because he doesn't find use for them?

Long story short, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Selah said:

Not trying to bash anyone here but trying to apply a text from the 18th century today is plain wrong. I'm not discussing or refuting the content of that text but things have changed since then.

If some elements of the Bill of Rights are justified today it's all good, but elements that doesn't apply anymore due to a change in context should be put aside.

Click to expand...

I feel as if you failed to read my post in the first place.

Some elements of the Bill of Rights are antiquated notions, some elements still apply in our cultural and historical context. I'm not entitled to make that distinction, nor will I take side in a debate about the content and meaning of those amendments. But justifying the use of modern weaponry while quoting a 200 years old text is not the way to go. Other more sensible arguments can be found for both sides. If the Bill of Rights said that we are entitled to have duels in public, should this still apply in this day and age?

I was just pointing out the dangers of the literal translation of a historical text in our modern context.


There is a fundamental difference between a simple opinion and a well informed one. I think we can both agree on that.

Selah said:

I feel as if you failed to read my post in the first place.

Some elements of the Bill of Rights are antiquated notions, some elements still apply in our cultural and historical context. I'm not entitled to make that distinction, nor will I take side in a debate about the content and meaning of those amendments. But justifying the use of modern weaponry while quoting a 200 years old text is not the way to go. Other more sensible arguments can be found for both sides. If the Bill of Rights said that we are entitled to have duels in public, should this still apply in this day and age?

I was just pointing out the dangers of the literal translation of a historical text in our modern context.


There is a fundamental difference between a simple opinion and a well informed one. I think we can both agree on that.

Click to expand...

sensible...........wrong number

Selah said:

I feel as if you failed to read my post in the first place.

Some elements of the Bill of Rights are antiquated notions, some elements still apply in our cultural and historical context. I'm not entitled to make that distinction, nor will I take side in a debate about the content and meaning of those amendments. But justifying the use of modern weaponry while quoting a 200 years old text is not the way to go. Other more sensible arguments can be found for both sides. If the Bill of Rights said that we are entitled to have duels in public, should this still apply in this day and age?

I was just pointing out the dangers of the literal translation of a historical text in our modern context.


There is a fundamental difference between a simple opinion and a well informed one. I think we can both agree on that.

Click to expand...

The second reads "Of common use at the time".

Dont like it?

Move.

You can't cherry pick a Constitution, it defeats the purpose in the first place and undermines the rest of the document.

Harrekin said:

You can't cherry pick a Constitution, it defeats the purpose in the first place and undermines the rest of the document.

Click to expand...

So basically the Constitution should apply now and till the end of time without any form of revision or update as society evolves?
If one element of said Constitution is put aside the integrity of the entire document is at stake? Care to elaborate?

This kind of reasoning is a recipe for disaster. In the future the differences between society and your sacred document will keep growing till it reaches a point where violent conflict will ensue.

I'm throwing my cristal ball away after my last affirmation.

Selah said:

So basically the Constitution should apply now and till the end of time without any form of revision or update as society evolves?
If one element of said Constitution is put aside the integrity of the entire document is at stake? Care to elaborate?

This kind of reasoning is a recipe for disaster. In the future the differences between society and your sacred document will keep growing till it reaches a point where violent conflict will ensue.

I'm throwing my cristal ball away after my last affirmation.

Click to expand...

Ever heard the word "Amendment" and wondered just what it meant?

There is a process for removing "antiquated" sections of a Constitution, given how it hasn't been enacted on the Second I'd imagine its because few think like you do.

So I reassert that you can move if you don't like it? Maybe Europe would suit better?

There is no need to start an argument. Why are you becoming angry?
If it is impossible to have a sensible conversation with you I'm more than happy to leave this thread so your opininions and convictions won't be hurt.

Good day to you.

Selah said:

There is no need to start an argument. Why are you becoming angry?
If it is impossible to have a sensible conversation with you I'm more than happy to leave this thread so your opininions and convictions won't be hurt.

Good day to you.

Click to expand...

So you come to assert the Constitution is "dated" and get butthurt when I point out there's already a process to amend it?

Cool story bro, and I ain't mad, your argument is just stupid.

I'm in no way butthurt. When communication fails I tend to leave it at that, it serves no purpose to start arguing while we are not able to hear each other.

The meaning of my words resides in what I intend them to be, not in how you interpret them.

As you said before opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, the same can be said for your judgement regarding my argument.

Selah said:

I'm in no way butthurt. When communication fails I tend to leave it at that, it serves no purpose to start arguing while we are not able to hear each other.

The meaning of my words resides in what I intend them to be, not in how you interpret them.

As you said before opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, the same can be said for your judgement regarding my argument.

Click to expand...

Your argument is that the Constitution needs to be changed, there is a process for that which is not being used...because obviously not everyone agrees with you...

Comprende?