How would the Founding Fathers view nuclear weapons?

[RCA]

Would they keep them or ban them?

[acptulsa]

Probably with fear and loathing, like the rest of us. And they'd keep them if they could find no other defense against them except deterrence through mutually assured destruction.

[hadenough]

Yea, the only thing worse than having nukes, is being the only one who doesn't have nukes. It would be a better world if we gathered all the nukes and set them off in Washington.

[Kludge]

Does it matter? Many of them (the ones textbooks ignored) were racists, bigots, and scoundrels.

[heavenlyboy34]

Does it matter? Many of them (the ones textbooks ignored) were racists, bigots, and scoundrels.

:rolleyes: Historical context fail.

[heavenlyboy34]

Would they keep them or ban them?

I suspect that the Jeffersonian leaning fellows would ban them unless the citizenry had a way of outgunning the gov'ment. ;)

[krazy kaju]

*prepares for hermeneutic cluster fuck*

[jack555]

I suspect that the Jeffersonian leaning fellows would ban them unless the citizenry had a way of outgunning the gov'ment. ;)


I disagree. I believe if Jefferson were alive today he would realize that nuclear weapons are too much of a threat to the people around you for a citizen to have.

Through accidents alone it is just not practical for a citizen to have a nuke...


I also believe through smarts alone any reasonable person would realize we need to keep nukes just because other countries have them.

[Kludge]

:rolleyes: Historical context fail.

Lol. Treating people like farm animals ain't right, no matter the time period.

[heavenlyboy34]

I disagree. I believe if Jefferson were alive today he would realize that nuclear weapons are too much of a threat to the people around you for a citizen to have.

Through accidents alone it is just not practical for a citizen to have a nuke...


I also believe through smarts alone any reasonable person would realize we need to keep nukes just because other countries have them.


If the government gives up its nukes, I'll rescind my demand to own my own nukes.


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

[jack555]

If the government gives up its nukes, I'll rescind my demand to own my own nukes.


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353









I could provide much better quotes than the one you provided for your cause ;)


It comes down to the second amendment and the idea that a citizen should have any gun the government has.

The problem with looking at what Jefferson said hundreds of years ago is a gun or rocket launcher does not pose the same level of threat to those around you as a nuke.

Think of it this way, does someone have a right to point a gun at you for no reason? No.

Does someone have a right to own a gun? yes

You can think of someone having a nuke as pointing a gun at you. It's not safe and it puts you in danger.

Also, the damage a nuke can do is incomparable to any gun Jefferson could have conceived of.

Jefferson was a smart man, one of the smartest in history in my opinion. Only a fool would want citizens to have nukes. and governments will not be getting rid of them any time soon

[tmosley]

Having nukes makes you unassailable in terms of conventional attack. Nuclear attack ruins the conquered area, so it's pointless. Why do you think the world's borders suddenly stopped changing after WWII?

They would have wanted some, to stop the hideously destructive Revolution. If they had nukes, the Declaration of Independence would have been it. The English would never have dared to attack.

[mediahasyou]

The founding fathers did not even want a standing army.

[sevin]

Does it matter? Many of them (the ones textbooks ignored) were racists, bigots, and scoundrels.
Historical context fail.

Lol. Treating people like farm animals ain't right, no matter the time period.

Sure, but why bring it up? What does many of them being racist have to do with nukes?

Your comment is off topic, and it's the kind of crap they overemphasize in public schools to discredit anything the founding fathers believed, including the Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

I could provide much better quotes than the one you provided for your cause ;)


It comes down to the second amendment and the idea that a citizen should have any gun the government has.

The problem with looking at what Jefferson said hundreds of years ago is a gun or rocket launcher does not pose the same level of threat to those around you as a nuke.

Think of it this way, does someone have a right to point a gun at you for no reason? No.

Does someone have a right to own a gun? yes

You can think of someone having a nuke as pointing a gun at you. It's not safe and it puts you in danger.

Also, the damage a nuke can do is incomparable to any gun Jefferson could have conceived of.

Jefferson was a smart man, one of the smartest in history in my opinion. Only a fool would want citizens to have nukes. and governments will not be getting rid of them any time soon

I would argue that only a fool would let his government outgun him and his fellow citizens. :p (T.J. seems to agree with me, BTW. ;):) )

[jack555]

I would argue that only a fool would let his government outgun him and his fellow citizens. :p (T.J. seems to agree with me, BTW. ;):) )


Ok so we agree that governments will have nukes for the forseeable future. right? If not let me know.

With that established are you really telling me that you want united states citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons? You want congress to pass a bill tommorow saying that citizens can have nuclear weapons (though its arguable a law wouldn't need to be passed because of the constitution)? This is the world you want to live in?

Thomas Jefferson was a reasonable man, this is one area where as much as I hate to say it, times have changed. Citizens should not be able to have nuclear weapons.

[nobody's_hero]

I'd say that the founders would think nuclear weapons to be an abomination and embarrassment to the intellectual capacity of the human race, and that no government should be allowed to keep and bear them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok so we agree that governments will have nukes for the forseeable future. right? If not let me know.

With that established are you really telling me that you want united states citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons? You want congress to pass a bill tommorow saying that citizens can have nuclear weapons (though its arguable a law wouldn't need to be passed because of the constitution)? This is the world you want to live in?

Thomas Jefferson was a reasonable man, this is one area where as much as I hate to say it, times have changed. Citizens should not be able to have nuclear weapons.

I'm saying all or neither. That is, either gov'ment shall get rid of their nukes or the citizenry shall have equal firepower to keep the gov'ment in check. Ideally, neither force should be armed with nukes.

[RickyJ]

Does it matter? Many of them (the ones textbooks ignored) were racists, bigots, and scoundrels.

Kind of like you. :D

[jack555]

I'd say that the founders would think nuclear weapons to be an abomination and embarrassment to the intellectual capacity of the human race, and that no government should be allowed to keep and bear them.


That may be but that will never happen (not in the foreesable future anyways)

[jack555]

I'm saying all or neither. That is, either gov'ment shall get rid of their nukes or the citizenry shall have equal firepower to keep the gov'ment in check. Ideally, neither force should be armed with nukes.

I agree in principle and wish it were a real world solution to have the citizens as armed as the government. Nukes just change everything. They don't even follow the standard rules of chemistry...

[Kludge]

Sure, but why bring it up? What does many of them being racist have to do with nukes?

Your comment is off topic, and it's the kind of crap they overemphasize in public schools to discredit anything the founding fathers believed, including the Constitution.

It isn't emphasized in public schools. Governments approve textbooks which inspire blind and generic Patriotism. They portray all American leaders as heroes. The one I was taught American History with even tried to say Nixon was found guilty by association.

The Confederates are able to be criticized because they were an "old" nation which was re-conquered by the Mighty American Uniters. They're portrayed as angry savages which are later forced to assimilate into proper American society.

Edit: As for it being irrelevant, it argues that the premise of this thread; that what the Founders thought is important, is flawed.

[Kludge]

Kind of like you. :D

Scoundrel, maybe, but I try to keep the racist/bigot label off of me.

[tremendoustie]

Nukes cannot reasonably be used for self defense, because they kill indiscriminately -- therefore, neither governments nor people should have them. Will it happen? No, but it should. Having a nuke is akin to pointing a gun at and threatening your neighbor.

The only valid weapons are those which can be used in self defense, against your assailant(s).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Would they keep them or ban them?

Another personal enrichment question to expand our horizons?

[gaazn]

It's possible that they might have kept them to scare England into not invading the U.S. in the early 1800s. Perhaps they might have used them on the Indians.

[tmosley]

Nukes cannot reasonably be used for self defense, because they kill indiscriminately -- therefore, neither governments nor people should have them. Will it happen? No, but it should. Having a nuke is akin to pointing a gun at and threatening your neighbor.

The only valid weapons are those which can be used in self defense, against your assailant(s).

Simply having them means you'll never be invaded by another country. As I said before, notice how borders haven't changed much anymore since 1945? Notice how those nations that have nukes never lose territory to other nations? They only lose territory during civil wars and economic collapse, and then only to form new republics. The US and Russia pushed the idea of a nuclear war about as far as it would go (that would have been a war fought primarily with nukes), and I think we learned that that type of war just isn't worth it. Nukes are to nations like guns are to citizens. They are the great equalizers. It doesn't matter how many soldiers your nation can raise, nor does it matter how much more advanced they are than you, nor does their industrial capacity matter. All that matters is their arsenal of nukes.

Although to be fair, nukes are more like grenades, in that their use will tend to backfire on you. Still, I certainly wouldn't run into the house of some dude with a bunch of grenades for pretty much ANY reason.

[tmosley]

Perhaps they might have used them on the Indians.

Absolutely not. You can't take land with nukes. Well, you can, but it's pretty worthless afterwards.

Anyways, there were no great Indian cities to destroy.

You only have to use a nuke once, then the threat of them is understood, and you'll have peace if you want it. A nuclear armed nation can still invade a nation that doesn't use nukes, of course, so they could have still done the Manifest Destiny thing. They probably would have used it to take Canada and Mexico as well, though.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Scoundrel, maybe, but I try to keep the racist/bigot label off of me.

Either it is self-evident that human beings are a certain formal way, unalienably speaking, or the best we can behave together is racist and biggoted. *Our Founding-Fathers reduced the truth to an undeniable one. This is a Formal-Culture that supercedes all other minor cultures. These minor cultures would include the Native American, European, African, Asian and Hispanic.

*Obama refers to our Founding-Fathers as not "our" but "the" founding-fathers in order to distance himself from them politically. Because they defined a greater Formal-Culture, one should use formal terms when referring to them.