Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/23/2003 2:34:18 PM EDT
This is a favorite argument of the anti's, "What about owning nukes?!". Besides The fact that this argument is ridiulous(where would one even get a nuke? Brownell's?), are there currently any laws prhibiting the possesion of a nuclear device?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:36:17 PM EDT
Mostly DOE Atomic material rules. Safekeeping of radioactive materials is the real issue with them, of course....not just Weapons grade, either.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:40:04 PM EDT
LOL, don't have an AD or you'll mess up a whole bunch more then just putting a hole in your wall.LOL.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:43:58 PM EDT
Having your own nuclear device --

There must be at least 20 different laws, relating to terrorism, possession of weapons of mass destruction, possession of fissile material, etc.

Plus it's a very, very stupid idea.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:44:41 PM EDT
Such an asinine argument. The billions of dollars you'd need to mine, refine, process uranium, the technical expertise needed to actually assemble a working bomb makes the whole argument absurd.

Anyway, a bomb isn't a small arm in the first place.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:47:50 PM EDT
Hell, they are VERY expensive. Even Michael Jackson would be hard pressed to afford one.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:53:34 PM EDT
Actually the @nd does have some inherit lexiconical limitations, and that is one of them.

During the time it was written there were two broad classifications of weaponry, Arms and Ordnance.

An arm is something reasonably man-portable, and reasonably capable of hitting an individual (or group of individuals in close proximity). Ordnance is something that is primarily designed to destroy material, infrastructure, or people indiscriminitly, and not man portable.

The founders allowed us Arms, but omitted ordnance. This can be taken to assume that they did not wish to create a concrete restriction, however felt it prudent to not endorse open ownership of ordnance.

The nuclear weapon fails to be an arm by that test in the regard that it can not be used to kill a single targetted individual, and it could not be carried by a man or group of men to its point of use.

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:55:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Such an asinine argument. The billions of dollars you'd need to mine, refine, process uranium, the technical expertise needed to actually assemble a working bomb makes the whole argument absurd.

Anyway, a bomb isn't a small arm in the first place.



But I need it for duck hunting
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:56:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Such an asinine argument. The billions of dollars you'd need to mine, refine, process uranium, the technical expertise needed to actually assemble a working bomb makes the whole argument absurd.

Anyway, a bomb isn't a small arm in the first place.



What do 'small arms' have to do with it?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:58:19 PM EDT
??? I'm sure there are several small nukes that would be portable enough to be carried by a person and that should scare the heck out of us. I'd hate for a Tango to get ahold of one. It could mess up a bunch of peoples day, big time.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:05:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Actually the @nd does have some inherit lexiconical limitations, and that is one of them.

During the time it was written there were two broad classifications of weaponry, Arms and Ordnance.

An arm is something reasonably man-portable, and reasonably capable of hitting an individual (or group of individuals in close proximity). Ordnance is something that is primarily designed to destroy material, infrastructure, or people indiscriminitly, and not man portable.

The founders allowed us Arms, but omitted ordnance. This can be taken to assume that they did not wish to create a concrete restriction, however felt it prudent to not endorse open ownership of ordnance.

The nuclear weapon fails to be an arm by that test in the regard that it can not be used to kill a single targetted individual, and it could not be carried by a man or group of men to its point of use.




Dividing out 'ordnance' from 'arms' is the same as the anti's using 'sporting purpose' and 'hunting' to deny people their right to arms.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:11:53 PM EDT
Not really, because there is a CLEAR distinction.

An Arm is ANYTHING Man Portable and individually targetable.

Ordnance is ANYTHING Non Portable AND Indiscriminite.

Thus, AR15's, Shotguns, Deathrays, etc ANYTHING AT ALL that can be carried and used to kill just one person of your choosing is allowable... including anything that could be cooked up in the future.

BTW, as far as a backpack nuke, its barely man-portable (Hump it 50 miles...)... however it is still indiscriminate... you cannot kill JUST the individual you wish to with it. Therefore it is ordnance.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:13:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:
Dividing out 'ordnance' from 'arms' is the same as the anti's using 'sporting purpose' and 'hunting' to deny people their right to arms.



OK, Silence -- answer the following: does the 2nd amendment guarantee me the right to have any or all of the following:

- Rifles
- Pistols
- Cannons
- Tanks
- High Explosives
- VX Gas
- Smallpox
- Nuclear Weapons

Where do you draw the line? If you don't draw the line, do you want your kids living next door to a neighbor who has a tank of mustard gas in the kitchen?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:24:30 PM EDT
"Mr.President,we must not allow a mine shaft gap."My thoughts are that Tactical and or strategic.....uummm...physics pkgs are the the responsibility of the state.I will supply my own small arms(if the kommies in Bawston let us)the state can supply the carrier battle groups, and perhaps, support me with some ammo.National defense begins in the back yard.It is also not like nuclear hand gernades are practical.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:25:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Not really, because there is a CLEAR distinction.

An Arm is ANYTHING Man Portable and individually targetable.

Ordnance is ANYTHING Non Portable AND Indiscriminite.

Thus, AR15's, Shotguns, Deathrays, etc ANYTHING AT ALL that can be carried and used to kill just one person of your choosing is allowable... including anything that could be cooked up in the future.

BTW, as far as a backpack nuke, its barely man-portable (Hump it 50 miles...)... however it is still indiscriminate... you cannot kill JUST the individual you wish to with it. Therefore it is ordnance.



I guess no private citizen during the revolution owned 'ordance' then. Oh yeah thats right they did. They made them, they bought them, and they used them.

I guess that those armed privateers were simply figments of imagination. Nope they existed.

The 'clear distinction' does not exist when you look at the time.

A cannon, or a tank, or a B-52, is as much a right of the People as a Rifle.

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the government the power over a priate citizen owning any property, as long as that property does not harm someone else.

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:29:34 PM EDT

Phil_A_Steen
11/23/2003 7:13:28 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By Silence:
Dividing out 'ordnance' from 'arms' is the same as the anti's using 'sporting purpose' and 'hunting' to deny people their right to arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




OK, Silence -- answer the following: does the 2nd amendment guarantee me the right to have any or all of the following:

- Rifles
- Pistols
- Cannons
- Tanks
- High Explosives
- VX Gas
- Smallpox
- Nuclear Weapons

Where do you draw the line? If you don't draw the line, do you want your kids living next door to a neighbor who has a tank of mustard gas in the kitchen?



I knew I guy that did that once; he tried making a super cleaning solution. Stupidity can be a pretty funny thing.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:41:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:

A cannon, or a tank, or a B-52, is as much a right of the People as a Rifle.

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the government the power over a priate citizen owning any property, as long as that property does not harm someone else.




So I am reading in to your post that you think you should be allowed to own a nuke or mustard gas or smallpox.

I wouldn't want to live on the same continent with any individual who owns any of those, and 99% of governments.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:16:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 4:18:07 PM EDT by CavVet]
I owuld use the general AW argument. People who can afford $1000.00 weapons, are not the ones doing the wanton crime.

Anyone who can afford NRC, DOE, BATFEFBICIAABCDEFG clearance, as well as building, storing, security etc. Sure, let them own it. Dupont had a tank, but I would doubt even Trump could afford a nuke. But if he can, I am sure he would be a good handler.

OOPS, DO NOT FORGET ABOUT LAWS AND CRIME RELATIONSHIPS....

Since the thread is assumed to be legally, one must insert the following.

In KA, Sgtar cannot but a new ar15, but a GangbangerGerald can go buy one underground. Trump may not be able to buy one legally, but TalibanTeddy can go get one from the Ruskies for 99.95, and watch for falling prices.

Illegal has no bearing on crime, as murder is already illegal!

If they wanna knock out a city, they dont need a nuke, they can use [insert your own ideas, i aint givin anybody any]!
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:10:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 6:11:25 PM EDT by ProfessorEvil]

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
I wouldn't want to live on the same continent with any individual who owns any of those, and 99% of governments.



Where ya living now, Antartica?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:40:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MuzlFlash:

Originally Posted By raven:
Such an asinine argument. The billions of dollars you'd need to mine, refine, process uranium, the technical expertise needed to actually assemble a working bomb makes the whole argument absurd.

Anyway, a bomb isn't a small arm in the first place.



But I need it for duck hunting



I use mine for plinking.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:59:58 PM EDT
I beg to differ.

If I dropped/rolled/whatever a nuke off a 5 story building, I could kill just one person.

If I strapped one person to the nuke, and detonated it over the ocean, I could just kill one person.

Seriously... I bet one can easily find hundreds if not thousands of spots in Alaska where you could nuke just one person.

[oracle]But you already know that...[/oracle]
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:24:39 PM EDT
I know I should know this, but what is the practical smallest yield nuke that can be built?

CW
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:37:36 PM EDT
I need mine for fishing. Makes it real easy too, they're all just left on the surface when the dust(?) settles. cooked, and ready to eat.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:48:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dinkydow:
"Mr.President,we must not allow a mine shaft gap."



Nice Quotesmanship.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:13:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:
I know I should know this, but what is the practical smallest yield nuke that can be built?
CW



"Californium is an aritficial element that can be made by bombarding uranium with very intense neturon sources. While I do not know what it would cost to manufacture, it is undoubtedly expensive. However, it is at least conceivable that this element or somthing with similar properties could be manufactured inexpensively and in quantity in 1969 or a later time period. Anyway, practical or not, it illustrates a possibility. Californium is a fissionable element that fissions much more efficiently than any of the uranium or plutonium isotopes. It produces 3½ neutrons per fission. This large number of neutrons means that a very small amount of Californium could be made into a critical mass, say an amount about the size of a bullet; that is, the nuclear rifle or pistol could be made into a reality. Therefore, if the costs of Californium could be reduced, it might be possible to make bullets which would be subcritical in their normal state, but which would become critical when hitting their target, because of compression on impact or because some neutron-absorbing element was removed. At that point the bullet might explode with a force equivalent to, say, 10 tons of TNT. Even the atomic six-gun is conceivable. The idea is, of course, impractical today, but it does indicate the kinds of things that are technologically feasible. (It is also impractical for another reason -- the half-life of Californium is only a few days, so one would have to use it almost as fast as it was manufactured.)"

On Thermonuclear War, Herman Kahn, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960, page 494.

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:22:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rosstradamus:

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:
I know I should know this, but what is the practical smallest yield nuke that can be built?
CW



"Californium is an aritficial element that can be made by bombarding uranium with very intense neturon sources. While I do not know what it would cost to manufacture, it is undoubtedly expensive. However, it is at least conceivable that this element or somthing with similar properties could be manufactured inexpensively and in quantity in 1969 or a later time period. Anyway, practical or not, it illustrates a possibility. Californium is a fissionable element that fissions much more efficiently than any of the uranium or plutonium isotopes. It produces 3½ neutrons per fission. This large number of neutrons means that a very small amount of Californium could be made into a critical mass, say an amount about the size of a bullet; that is, the nuclear rifle or pistol could be made into a reality. Therefore, if the costs of Californium could be reduced, it might be possible to make bullets which would be subcritical in their normal state, but which would become critical when hitting their target, because of compression on impact or because some neutron-absorbing element was removed. At that point the bullet might explode with a force equivalent to, say, 10 tons of TNT. Even the atomic six-gun is conceivable. The idea is, of course, impractical today, but it does indicate the kinds of things that are technologically feasible. (It is also impractical for another reason -- the half-life of Californium is only a few days, so one would have to use it almost as fast as it was manufactured.)"

On Thermonuclear War, Herman Kahn, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960, page 494.





Reminds me of watching old nuclear test footage in which an artillary piece was used to fire a nuclear projectile into a mountainside.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:40:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rosstradamus:
Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior: I know I should know this, but what is the practical smallest yield nuke that can be built? CW
View Quote
"Californium is an aritficial element that can be made by bombarding uranium with very intense neturon sources. While I do not know what it would cost to manufacture, it is undoubtedly expensive. However, it is at least conceivable that this element or somthing with similar properties could be manufactured inexpensively and in quantity in 1969 or a later time period. Anyway, practical or not, it illustrates a possibility. Californium is a fissionable element that fissions much more efficiently than any of the uranium or plutonium isotopes. It produces 3½ neutrons per fission. This large number of neutrons means that a very small amount of Californium could be made into a critical mass, say an amount about the size of a bullet; that is, the nuclear rifle or pistol could be made into a reality. Therefore, if the costs of Californium could be reduced, it might be possible to make bullets which would be subcritical in their normal state, but which would become critical when hitting their target, because of compression on impact or because some neutron-absorbing element was removed. At that point the bullet might explode with a force equivalent to, say, 10 tons of TNT. Even the atomic six-gun is conceivable. The idea is, of course, impractical today, but it does indicate the kinds of things that are technologically feasible. (It is also impractical for another reason -- the half-life of Californium is only a few days, so one would have to use it almost as fast as it was manufactured.)" [i]On Thermonuclear War,[/i] Herman Kahn, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960, page 494.
View Quote
OK, so what caliber are we talking about? Can you imagine a .22 pistol with that ammo? Or, how about blowing away your favorite varmint (literally) with a .17 rifle? The opportunities are only limited by the imagination... CW
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:42:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Andreuha:
Originally Posted By Rosstradamus:
Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior: I know I should know this, but what is the practical smallest yield nuke that can be built? CW
View Quote
"Californium is an aritficial element that can be made by bombarding uranium with very intense neturon sources. While I do not know what it would cost to manufacture, it is undoubtedly expensive. However, it is at least conceivable that this element or somthing with similar properties could be manufactured inexpensively and in quantity in 1969 or a later time period. Anyway, practical or not, it illustrates a possibility. Californium is a fissionable element that fissions much more efficiently than any of the uranium or plutonium isotopes. It produces 3½ neutrons per fission. This large number of neutrons means that a very small amount of Californium could be made into a critical mass, say an amount about the size of a bullet; that is, the nuclear rifle or pistol could be made into a reality. Therefore, if the costs of Californium could be reduced, it might be possible to make bullets which would be subcritical in their normal state, but which would become critical when hitting their target, because of compression on impact or because some neutron-absorbing element was removed. At that point the bullet might explode with a force equivalent to, say, 10 tons of TNT. Even the atomic six-gun is conceivable. The idea is, of course, impractical today, but it does indicate the kinds of things that are technologically feasible. (It is also impractical for another reason -- the half-life of Californium is only a few days, so one would have to use it almost as fast as it was manufactured.)" [i]On Thermonuclear War,[/i] Herman Kahn, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960, page 494.
View Quote
Reminds me of watching old nuclear test footage in which an artillary piece was used to fire a nuclear projectile into a mountainside.
View Quote
Little David?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 9:25:23 PM EDT
More likely referring to "Atomic Annie", the first nuclear capable tube type field artillery. Little David was, if memory serves, not too different from an RPG on steroids mounted on a tripod. Atomic Annie still resides at Ft. Sill. Remeniscent of railway artillery in many ways. Don't remember the bore size off the top of my head. Cpt. Redleg
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 9:35:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cpt_Redleg: More likely referring to "Atomic Annie", the first nuclear capable tube type field artillery. Little David was, if memory serves, not too different from an RPG on steroids mounted on a tripod. Atomic Annie still resides at Ft. Sill. Remeniscent of railway artillery in many ways. Don't remember the bore size off the top of my head. Cpt. Redleg
View Quote
Yeah, that's right. Little David was the only one I cold bring to the front of my mind; Atomic Annie was sitting on my toungue but I couldn't spit her out. Thanks for the correction.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:37:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cpt_Redleg: Atomic Annie still resides at Ft. Sill. Remeniscent of railway artillery in many ways. Don't remember the bore size off the top of my head.
View Quote
280mm. The yield was 15 kt.
Top Top