Dangerousman wrote:jman111 wrote:Next up, where do we draw that line? Obviously, prohibition of possession of nukes could be justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals resulting from the possession of nukes (similar to the justification for free speech limits on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists). There must be some sort of weighing exercise that measures the right to bear the arm against the increased "harm" (or the potential thereof) caused by the bearing of the arm.
Following this logic, limitations on other types of arms could be deemed perfectly constitutional if weighed against the same or similar criteria, right?
Yes, but that's not the logic I followed when I said nukes aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. If we followed your logic, i.e. "justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals" one might go down the slippery slope and say that there are no arms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, because any form of arms represents a greater danger to somebody. And logically that can't be the case because the 2nd Amendment clearly is intended to protect at least some arms. Logic dictates you cannot have both a constitutional amendment protecting the keeping and bearing of arms AND yet have no actual arms that are protected. That's clearly a self-defeating line of reasoning.
But, see, you seem to have missed (or ignored) the part about the judicial weighing exercise that balances the right against the risk, that protects us from that slippery slope. I know you're familiar with the concept, because you used it to justify restrictions on certain individuals' rights to bear arms:
Dangerousman wrote:I've stated more than once that I don't have a problem with the concept of prohibitions against gun possession by felons convicted of certain types of crimes, or by people who have been found by a court to be so mentally ill that it would present a higher risk if that person was allowed to have a gun.
So, what "logic" were you following when you discussed nukes? The only thing I can find is this:
I don't think one needs nukes to counter the formation of a tyrannical government.