This has nothing to do with the Constitution, but also note that a firearm is a personal weapon whereas a nuclear bomb is a military weapon. Inalienable rights protect the individual.
No. The purpose and the control that one has over conventional firearms is a totally different matter that of the power and designed purpose of a nuclear device. Once unleased the limits are not totally under the users control under any circumstance, properly or justlifibly. With a firearm, they are controlable by a responsible user. Therefore it is not the device but the user than is responsible for the outcome. There in is the difference.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
The difference is discretionary vs non-discretionary weapons. You fire a gun, you have total control over where the bullet goes, including a shotgun (well in theory, after seeing some people shoot..... )
A bomb, nuclear or not, is non-discretionary in that it is designed to take out ANYTHING in an area, not a single point.
Question about a fundamental right.
)
