Right..."your opinion." That's exactly what I was saying 3 posts ago. Everyone has an opinion. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. The bottom line is...people don't agree.
I suppose. But it's HOW people come to their opinions, and how honest they are in expressing the TRUTH, that matters. From what I have seen, the only valid argument the anti-gunners seem to be able to come up with is that the Second Amendment can't really mean what it says, simply because they don't WANT it to mean that. When asked to provide documented historical facts to support their position, they simply start waving their arms and screaming about how all the people who happen to like guns are "knuckle dragging neanderthals", like that will suffice as their "one strike knock out" position to support their argument.
Often times they will fall back to the position that the Second Amendment is outdated because the authors couldn't possibly have foreseen the advances in weapons technology today. However, the First Amendment is completely immune to the technological advances in communication technology of today, and they can say that without breaking stride, or laughing at themselves, regardless of the illogicalness of the argument. Again, not a shred of evidence to support their position other than an emotionally laced appeal for "reasonableness" and/or "compromise" on the gun supporters side. "Reasonableness" meaning that THEY are reasonable, and YOU are not. And "compromise" meaning that they want to ban ALL guns, but they will settle (*now*) for just half of them.
And, of course, they will normally ask if it is OK for private individuals to own nukes. The answer to that, of course, is that nukes are not firearms in any sense of the term. They are POLITICAL weapons. They are not used in war. The THREAT of using them is employed instead. They require direct and specific approval by the heads of state to be employed in ANY situation.
But LITERALLY, if you want to consider them as merely arms, then yes, anyone who could afford a nuke and find someone to sell them one (or make it themselves) should be able to own one. Would I like it myself to live next to someone who had one? No. But that is the penalty of freedom. I have to put up with the rights of others if I wish to retain my own rights. By allowing a simple majority to take away YOUR rights implies that my own rights can be taken way by another simple majority. THAT is why we are a Constitutional Republic and NOT a Democracy.
Anyway, back to the point, I would treat a neighbor (not like I would EVER live in a neighborhood where someone would have that kind of free cash laying around!) owning a nuclear weapon the same as I would treat a neighbor who decided to start a pig or chicken farm next to me. I would move as far away from them as I could. Preferably up wind. I wouldn't like them exercising their right, but that's the breaks. I value my freedom, so I have to concede the point that they have every right to exercise their own rights, regardless of what I may think about it. Who knows? Someday I may want to do something that they won't particularly like. Like breeding snakes.
