- Seamus McGrenery
Should people have the right to bear nukes?
If the reason US citizens have the right to bear arms is to give them the capability to defend themselves from tyrannical Government, then should the right extend to nuclear weapons.
After all even if a city or state was to revolt against tyrannical federal rule they could be defeated using the stronger weaponry in the governments arsenal.
Closing Statement from Seamus McGrenery
We hand over our powers to people in Government because, ultimately, we benefit from Government actions. One of the powers we hand over is that to defend ourselves. Government is probably best equipped to defend us from foreign invaders.
When it comes to the question of defending us against our fellow citizens it gets complicated. Peter and Krisztián have discussed how they see the balance between your freedom to protect yourself versus my ability to be protected from you in the context of guns.
As Mike points out the US Constitution does not say that 'arms' means guns.
There seems to be an unspoken assumption that some weapons are so dangerous that no individual should hold them in a private capacity. Yet, to me as an outsider, it seems like the intention behind the right to bear arms in the US Constitution implies that citizens have a right to defend themselves against unjust Government.
So this is where the contradiction lies. The more our societies and technologies develop, the more power is potentially gathered in a few hands.
Internationally this raises many issues, the actions of powerful Governments, Corporations and Organizations can impact the citizens of many Countries, without those citizens being able to directly influence the decision makers.
Meanwhile many many Americans are being killed by their fellow citizens because somebody decided that 'arms' did mean just 'guns'.
Just maybe some people would think differently if they defined 'arms' as meaning 'any weapon'. I hope most of us would not believe that individuals should have a right to 'bear nuclear weapons'.