A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

It seems to me that the regulation of nuclear weapons might fall under international treaties. The US government has signed nonproliferation treaties with regards to nuclear weapons and there are international laws which govern them. I think that we are (or should be) bound by these laws. The same thing applies to all other WMDs. Since these things are banned by international convention they are equally restricted to the citizens.Philosophically speaking I don’t see where the 2nd amendment precludes WMDs but I expect that if they had been available at the time they would have been restricted. Personally, I think that any weapon that can kill more than 100,000 people at a time is simply too dangerous for any person of government to posses.Just my $0.02.

quote:

---

To my mind this involves coming to good definitions regarding modern weapons (which have reached well beyond the imaginations of our founding fathers) so they do not fall under the same category of "arms", or admitting that the 2nd amendment allows for this IMO absurdity and either allowing it to continue or amending the constitution.

---

We may not even need new definitions or amendments. I think that when it comes to WMDs it is pretty clear then that even if they do fall under the category of "arms" it doesn't give the people a right to own them. I think it would be easy to argue that the country has a compelling interest in keeping these things tightly regulated, since any of these WMDs could really do long term damage to an area and kill thousands of people at a time.It is much like the freedom of speech, you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Even though the first amendment gives you the right to say what you want the state has an overriding interest in preventing stampedes.The bottom line for me is that with the current constitution WMDs are out, and I'm sure the SCOTUS would agree.

quote:

---

The problem is that if we don't take concrete measures now, this same problem can keep coming up in the future. In other words we are setting a bad example of not dealing with issues by avoiding the creation of forward thinking mechanisms.

---

While I agree with you in principle I think that in practice this will not work. Since we have no idea what new methods of killing each other people will come up with in the future I think it best to leave it to interpretation. I realize that this will cause conflicts in the future but they too can be decided at the time they come up and I don't know that they will be any worse than the conflicts that will arise when you invent something outside the law. I can't see how we could possibly codify something today that would necessarily apply in the year 2104.

In that case I agree completely. It is a very reasonable and compelling position. When are you running for office so I can vote for you?

Is the laughter directed at the fact that we don't follow international treaties or is it that you think we shouldn't be bound by them?

And you are equipped to be a prostitute, what does this say about you? There is a difference in this society between potential and action.

Glad I could amuse.It is true that the US flagrantly ignores international treaties. (And then Bush wants to know, "Why do they hate us?") I was just saying that the "legal" issues of my neighbor (I live in the US) owning a nuclear device might be covered by those treaties. It was suggested that those treaties don't supercede the constitution.