In article <viking.734084516@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes: >>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement. >>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive >>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the >>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things. >>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  >	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in >Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing >next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear >warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You >don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin >cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons >are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?  But whatever the neutrons hit has a good chance of absorbing the neutron and becoming radioactive itself. Mostly, that means water turning into (harmless) heavy water. But some neutrons would  also hit bones, and the resulting harmfull, secondard radioactives would remain in the body for decades. I think an unshielded nuclear warhead could reasonably be considered a public health hazard.  As for a shielded warhead, I think a fair amount of maintaince is required for it to remain safely shielded (e.g. storage in a dry, temperature-regulated facility, etc...) For private ownership to be unregulated, I think a single individual must be able not only to keep the weapon, but keep it in a safe condition. If any random private citizen could not properly keep, maintain and store a nuclear weapon, then some regulation is clearly appropriate.  >>  Plus these things have no self- >>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as >>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use >>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration >>(translation:  cities and population centers).  >	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal >government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  I disagree with this purpose: The job of the militia is to defend themselves and their community. If you look at the American  revolution as an example, the militias won by seperating themselves from, and becoming independent of, a repressive government. They didn't overthrow it, and those communities (Canada and England, for  example) that didn't defend themselves were still under that same old regime. If the role of the militia were offensive, to go out and destroy repressive governments, nuclear weapons _might_ be appropriate. But their jobs is defensive, and nuclear weapons aren't suited for that.  There is also the question of personal and collective arms: The Second Amendment definately protects ownership of personal weapons (since the very nature of the militia requires members to provide their own arms.) But it isn't clear if it covers other arms. Certainly, not all members would supply (for example) a tank, only a few could or (if they were to be used effectively) should. However, those providing the heavy weapons have a  disproportionate control over the militia and its fierpower. The militias, as the framers envisioned them, were extremely democratic: If only 50% of the members supported the cause, only 50% would respond to a muster, and the militia's firepower would be proportionately reduced. Militia firepower and the popular will were, therefore, linked. But if a small minority of the members supplied a large fraction of the firepower (in the form of heavy weapons) this would all change: The militia's firepower would depend on the will of a small minority, not of the general public. Worse, that minority would be quite different from the general public (at the very least, they would be much richer.) As a result, I think the nature and character of the militia requires that each member provide a roughly equal share of the militia's firepower: His personal weapons, and some equitable fraction of a squad's heavier firepower.