@Draco552big tanks and icbms Watching over my house 😎😎

Unfortunately no I don’t remember which one it is. But this is an idea that has been thought of before by philosophers so I’m sure there’s stuff out there

Stick a nuclear submarine in my pond. Hope no one tries sneaking up on my house

you sir have insulted my honour I challenge you to nukes at 10 paces

I'll take a dive through Matt's older videos someday soon and see if I can't find it

I don't understand how collateral would be a principled line. Is the thought process that no home defense could happen in a scenario other than both parties being in the home? Or that defense of the nation isn't an inherent aspect of 2A?

If you can’t deploy your means of self-defense without necessarily endangering the lives of innocents then it can’t be considered self defense

Necessary endangerment is contextual

You have to judge a means abstractly though rather than some specific case

There’s no way in which to detonate a nuclear device and only endanger the person who is attacking you

Well for starters, I was thinking hand grenades and rocket launchers, but beyond that the defensive capability of nukes lies in the ownership, not usage

You can construct a case in which innocents may be harmed by a gun but at the end of the day you can direct its range in a much more narrow way than an explosive of any kind

The reality of trying to produce mcnukes is that the production process is highly dangerous when done improperly, and so it is in the best interest of larger society to end it forcibly if you start

Even still, the scale of a nuclear device makes it irrelevant to personal protection of yourself, family, or property. The scale of defense of a nuclear weapon is National

If we're going off of a constitutional basis, national defense is within the purview of the citizenry is it not?

@amlam#1561 I have to disagree. 2A explicitly justifies the right to keep and bear arms through the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. That strongly implies that keeping weapons of war is the right *of the people.* Whether that rightfully includes nukes or not, well, I'm certainly open to debate; but as for the more conventional heavy weapons like explosives and antimateriel guns, as far as I am concerned those are the right of the Militia and the people who comprise it.

Nukes are expensive anyway so there's a huge barrier to entry, whereas you can get an old T-54 for like $30k

My main point being that 2A is not only about personal defense but is clearly concerned with the *collective* defense and that changes the equation completely.

Yeah that’s a good argument that I’ve heard before

I suppose my statement is more appropriate to the principles of self defense, not the legal entity of the second amendment

Well, the two are the same

Well the second amendment extends beyond personal self defense into national self defense

If you’re going to extend self defense beyond personal, then the person is no longer the thing owning the means for protection but rather the nation

And that’s what the military is

I'm not sure how you're splitting those exactly, it's really just scale

And no, 2A is explicitly about the citizenry, not the government

You can’t scale up one without the other. If you scale up the thing you’re defending then the thing owning the means of defense must also be scaled

I’m not speaking to the second amendment anymore

Not really

That's what the militia is for

It's not like the military is comprised of mercenaries or something, it's comprised of citizens

Yeah the militia is explicitly not a professional government army

Well it is an army, professional definitely questionable as it isn't supposed to be a profession, but "self-regulated" which means a militia can be governmental

Yes and when operating as a military, they are justified in controlling the means to protect an entire nation. If you’re operating as a single citizen, the tenets of self defense would only permit you to control the means to protect yourself or perhaps family members who can’t protect themselves

which is where the national guard theoretically gets its legal basis

Tenants of self defense expand beyond self and family, extends to property, extends to random people who are in immediate danger

You're effectively saying the means of defense should only be proportional to which you are defending

On what basis are you delineating need for weapons? You've stated it strongly enough, certainly, but I'm not seeing the necessity in your argument

Also everyone talks about nukes, but the real issue is chemical weapons they can be produced cheaply and have wide effects. Bio weapons are a huge mixed case, somethings are cheap others extremely expensive. And as far as their area of effective those vastly differ too

meanwhile in the DNC, "WhAt aBouT gUN CrIme"

https://constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm