Thinking about the 2nd Amendment and Nuclear Weapons.

in Proof of Brain2 months ago (edited)

The right to own cannons, or any other ARMS are something that is often argued about when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. People will sometimes say "Should someone be able to own a tank?" I'd assume the answer is yes because, in history they have owned cannons or ships with numerous cannons. Then the question inevitably turns to Nuclear Weapons. Should people be able to own them?

image.png

I've been thinking about this and I think I have an answer. I don't think governments would cooperate on this.

If a government can own a weapon then people should be able to as well.

This can make people freak out and panic thinking I am stating something crazy. If you don't carefully read what I wrote then I understand the panic. You see there is an answer to that statement above that removes the panic. Governments shouldn't be able to own Nuclear Weapons either. Period.

Do you think people shouldn't be able to own tanks? If the answer is no, then neither should governments.

Do you think people shouldn't be able to own explosive missiles? If the answer is no, then neither should governments.

Do you think people shouldn't be able to own land mines? If the answer is no, then neither should governments.

Now some people may think governments should be able to own these things after all they are there to protect us against other governments that have such things. The problem with that is that governments are just people. They also tend to be power seeking corrupt people for the most part. Why should they be the only ones allowed access to command the use of such terrible things?

If the government can have them. The people should be able to as well.

If you don't want people having them, the the solution is that they should be forbidden to the government as well.


You may then be thinking about government black budget programs, arms dealers, and the black market because the reality is that BANNING things doesn't work. It just pushes it into the shadowy corners of the world.

How do we fight that?

If it is proven someone has a nuclear weapon once they are banned then those with access to command it's use should be executed. Treason versus the world should be swift. Yet they should be innocent until proven guilty.

If you instead send them to prison all they need do is peddle influence while in prison (which the people must pay for) and when the appropriate corrupt politician happens to get in place they will likely be pardoned.

We are in a world with very little accountability for the truly powerful and influential people. This is so much the case that they keep committing crimes and likely even accelerate their crime spree as they laugh at the fact no one seemingly can touch them with anything more than words...

This must cease.

Looking at weapons. In reality if you cannot apply precision to a weapon and target only a specific individual without the use of that weapon almost always also targeting more than that individual then we likely shouldn't be using that weapon.

There is some magical thinking here. I realize this. This is more the IF THE WORLD WERE A SANE PLACE type of thought. I know it is not feasible but when discussing whether people should be armed or not and the limitations there in I do think it is worth considering.

Do I think people have the right to a nuclear weapon? No. Yet I believe the same is true of the government.

Why does an elected thug suddenly have rights that you as a citizen do not? Is it because enough people said they should be able to be a bully?

Have you not noticed how people react when you make them afraid? You can convince them to do almost anything.

Oh my god... they are going to nuke us. Let's build the largest nuclear arsenal in existence...

Now we do have the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction which likely is a big part of why nukes have not been used more often. That doesn't justify the existence of nukes in perpetuity. They need to be disarmed and removed.

Again, I know this is magical thinking.

Those we give power don't tend to ever give that power back.

When you allow them to trample your rights it is likely you won't get those rights back.

Don't let them control you through fear. Let their fear be a flare for your mind to look differently at how they are trying to influence you.

We must stop the madness. We must do something.

We must stop being useful idiots and puppets.

We must not be sheeple.

We must stop viewing elected officials, and so-called experts as being unquestionable, or unchallengeable.

They are people. Don't forget that! I mean it. Really remember. These people are not messengers from God with unquestionable knowledge and perfect morality. Just because they have knowledge, and/or happen to be an expert in a field does not mean they are not also a person and potentially corrupt/manipulated by money, funding, or emotions (fear, blackmail, etc.).

No one should be unquestionable.

We must also be unafraid to look in the mirror and call ourselves out for the same things we point out in others.


EDIT: Some food for thought... since this is one of those "Do not question" topics.

Watts Up With That.com: The Profound Junk Science of Climate

Sort:  

mhh good point. I actually like to use the "where would you stop if you legalize guns" argument. Quite a good rebottle though that I can't argue against. I agree that we would live in a better world when goverments are not allowed to have tanks, warships, ballistic missles and ofc nuclear weapons. I would even let the consensus go so far that war was better when it was with shield and sword. It is a lot different when you have to look your victims in the eyes. Modern Warfare is just good for the ones with a temporary advantage, but overall it makes the battlefield more and more brutal.

On the other hand I still like the concept of a state or community having the monopoly over violence. With "violence" I ofc rather mean things like jail and penalty payments then outright physical violence, well I guess we did talk a lot about the concept of violence. So in short, I just want the NAP to be enforced by a 3rd party, which should be sponsored/regulated by the community, you don't need to call it a state. I think this bare minimum of "government"/centralized authority is needed.

Our states (and kings before) have tried to be more than just that. Controlling what we say, do and think claiming our resources, education, science and religion.

I do want to live in a society where I have rules and an impartial 3rd party that I can call when these rules are violated against me or those around me.

We should start a DAO to develop force fields a la Star Trek. Nobody can argue against force fields, and their proliferation would be beneficial to everyone. Make nukes useless and governments will stop spending money on them.

Force fields are great until someone sneaks the nuke inside in a box or suitcase and detonates it inside the force field.

True true. But at least it would mitigate the threat of ICBMs, the most likely delivery method. Anyway, my point is that it would be nice if defense was more focused on... defense. I mean, systems that detect and neutralize weapons instead of people.

The problem ultimately with weapons is not in the weapons. It is within the minds of the people that wield them. That is also where the problem lies. How do we heal the minds of people?

People can and do kill people with all manner of objects. More people are killed each year by fists than they are guns. Knives also apply. Cars...

Pick up a rock, break a bottle, use a tent stake, put a fork in it, etc.

The problem is in the minds. There will always be some level of this.

However, some weapons guarantee collateral damage. I personally don't think collateral damage should ever be acceptable. EVER.

 2 months ago Reveal Comment