Question:

As an American, does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to own a tactical nuke?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

If not, why not?

 Tags:

   Report
Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

11 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date  |  Rating

  1. No.  Get a really old dictionary from around the time 1776 & look up the words: right, bear, & arms.

    Tactical nukes were unknown, you can NOT personally carry one around while trying to protect yourself, your family or your country.

    I seriously doubt that the authors of our Constitution or the Bill of Rights ever conceived of the notions of arms that could hurt more than one person at a time.


  2. Ask a REAL question!

  3. http://answerall.wirelessroot.com

    you can get much information in this website,stay a minute in website and check anyone link at a time,you can aslo get your answer in Google Search in this website, which has helped me alot

  4. No.  Because that would quickly end the human race.

  5. Go 4 it kid, and if it works out for you let me know, my neighbor likes to block my driveway sometimes, a thermonuclear bomb would end that problem but it would also end the lives of everyone else, so dont go for the bomb, a nice sheman tank would be more subtle.

    Where does yahoo find these yahoo's?

  6. The term "arms" are refers to guns, knives, bows, swords, etc.  Cannons, explosives, etc. are considered "ordnance".  The main difference is that "arms" can generally be concentrated in their lethality - that is, if I defend myself with a gun, the force is focused on one person in general.  A tactical nuke (or bombs or other ordinance) are indiscriminate in their force - that is, if I was to use a tactical nuke, the collateral damage would obviously be immense, as well as causing long-lasting effects thanks to radiation.

    EDIT-Above points about the founders not realizing that we would have nukes are moot points.  The founders couldn't have imagined the internet, but that doesn't mean we don't have freedom of speech on the internet.  The difference between owning an assault rifle (which should be 100% legal) is as I, and a couple others, stated - it has to do with the focus of the weapon and the scope of force (arms vs ordnance)

    EDIT

    You really don't see the difference? Missing with a musket (there were some pretty amazing musket sharpshooters) and detonating a nuclear device obviously have different destructive potentials.

    EDIT

    Man, the "asker", and other people answering, are missing the point.  A nuke, or other explosive devices, are not, and never were, considered arms.  They are ordnance.  And again, an automatic weapon can, as you put it, kill a lot of people - but you are able to choose who you target, unlike with a nuke.  And the 2nd Amendment was not put in place for home defense, exclusively.  The entire Bill of Rights was put in place as a defense against tyrannical Governments.

  7. Nope as it's not a weapon a militia would be expected to show up with.

  8. Theoretically, yes.  In reality, no.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Bear Arms is the right of an Individual and applies to a person to protect his home.  (I'm summarizing)  Therefore, the DC Gun Ban violated a persons 2nd Amendment Right.

    Most people would not be able to possess a Tactical Nuke within their home...the warhead, yes.

    The Supreme Court also left open, Reasonable Government Restrictions on the ownership of arms.

    Pro-Gun advocates can celebrate all they want...and I do...but the decision by the SCOTUS was fairly limited in scope.  The problem with the DC Ban was that it outright banned Handguns and made rifles/shotguns essentially useless for home defense.  It was definitely in the extreme and the most restrictive in the nation.

    A curious note, the 2nd Amendment has been said to apply to the Military / Militia...but if that was true then Civilian Government Officers such as US Marshalls, Police, etc. do not Constitutionally have the right to be armed.

    Any other aspect of Arms Ownership will need to be challenged in the SCOTUS in the future.  Until then, it's all theoretically possible until it is specifically defined.

  9. No, because a nuke cannot remotely be used for defense.  However, the 2nd Amendment does protect your right to own any weapon which could be used to exercise your right to revolution (that is, the right to alter or abolish the government).  Nukes are only good for killing off the entire human race, so you should not own them.

    However, owning an "assault weapon" or even a tank should be permitted because they are weapons that could be used to aid in either altering or abolishing the government.

  10. No. as to why, Common Sense.

  11. No, read the 8th Amendment.  If you say that the 2nd Amendment pertains to you, the 8th does too.
You're reading: As an American, does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to own a tactical nuke?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 11 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Register Now