All people have the right to safely own an Atomic Bomb

"the right to ownership of an atomic bomb is not even a freedom, much less a self-evident one. " Going back to the example of a man washed up on an island, if he happened to find an atomic bomb there he would have complete authority over it. He has -self evidently- the freedom to whatever he wishes with it. Just like he has complete freedom to burn down the forest, dig into the dirt, or whatever else he feels like doing. Just because you don't like the thought of the man destroying the island, doesn't mean you have any legitimate authority over him, his island, or his atomic bomb. If the bomb has no chance of damaging you or your property you have absolutely no say in what he does with the bomb. Again, he self evidently has complete freedom to do what he wishes. Yes you can make the point that the radiation could kill fish and thereby harm your fishing business, or you could argue that the bomb is big enough to harm a neighboring island, but this doesn't at all do harm to my position. If the atomic bomb exists in such a way to do damage to someone else's property, then that person at risk has the freedom to defend himself in the form of an easement, or if the danger is immediate then they will have to neutralize the threat immediately. " 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ' OR to the people, not AND to the people. This doesn't necessarily recognize a civilian right to atomic bomb ownership. " So what? It doesn't prohibit atomic bomb ownership, nor did the states cede their freedom to the government to make that determination. Even if they did, a person has the authority to withdraw his consent from the states or to the government and to govern his property as he sees fit. If he does not have such authority, then he is indistinguishable from a slave. My point was that all rights that the bill of rights promises not to infringe upon are not an exhaustive list. Just because it's not in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have the rightful freedom to safely own and operate an atomic bomb. "Civilian ownership of an atomic bomb infringes on the rights of others' self-defense, because atomic bombs cannot be defended against in a practical manner. " I completely disagree. As I already pointed out, nuclear energy can be safely contained, and is safely contained in the private sector on a regular basis. Again, my argument holds that if others are put at risk of harm, they have the freedom, by way of an easement to demand compensation to their satisfaction for the risk they are enduring. This compensation could range from a monetary sum, or safeguards that must be put in place that would ensure the safety of those around him. The likely event is that either the nuclear bomb would be dismantled or there would be enough safeguards in place that any kind of damage to surrounding property is negligible. "Ownership of an atomic bomb cannot be an individual right because it creates a 'risk beyond a reasonable doubt to [your] neighbors (sic) property. ' " Prove that an atomic bomb cannot under any circumstances be contained in such a way that it doesn't pose any risk to surrounding property. You keep saying it, but I've provided ample evidence that suggests that it can absolutely be done. ". .. from nuclear reactors, which are, by design, economically productive. This example does not apply to atomic bombs, which are designed solely for indiscriminate death and destruction that is not only wide-spread, but long-lasting. " So you're saying that people only have freedoms that are economically productive? If you really wanted to follow this to its logical conclusion it would be philosophical suicide. " All people encompasses delusional psychotic people. Because of this simple fact, your premise is wrong. " If a delusional and psychotic person can safely own an atomic bomb, then he has the freedom to own one. Though his condition likely will prevent such safe ownership. So in conclusion, my opponent has not been able to stand by his original arguments and has produced only more to try to patch up his sinking vessel. At the end of the day we have to admit that all people are born with the same freedoms as everyone else. Following from this, if we withdraw our consent from the government then we have the same authority that the government retained. We would have the freedom to own nuclear weapons in such a way as to preserve the safety of our neighbors, and that such safety can be guaranteed by simple claims for easement and the act of neutral arbitrators. The same considerations for any weapon, whether it is a gun being pointed at you, or a nuclear bomb is being put next to your property. We do not need big brother looking over our shoulders making sure that no citizen can have a nuclear bomb, and in fact such infringement on our freedom is immoral and unjustified. No one can make the pronouncement, regardless of the facts, that a certain segment of society has less freedoms than another segment. That is illogical, immoral, and unjustifiable.