Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[NotNow]

Let me say it again, StephenDare!.  Nuclear weapons are NOT "fantastically simple" to make.  While the theory is readily available, and the engineering is around, there are additional requirements to producing a device BESIDES the nuclear material itself.  "A centrifuge" will do nothing for you.  "A centrifuge" is only a small part of producing enriched Uranium.  The centrifuge process is massive, complicated, and expensive.  Ask Iran.  The black market?  No, there are no known valid quantities of this material available now or in the past. 

Again, all of the nuclear talk is moot anyway.  These issues are for another thread.

"Nuclear weapons" are not illegal.  It is against the law to own certain parts of such weapons.  It is against the law to own a "bomb" (defined differently by different jurisdictions).  And yes, of course I support those laws.

I have addressed the laughable "disarming the police and dismissing the military" point.

[ChriswUfGator]

I dunno NotNow, that team from M.I.T. made a working bomb design in a few hours from stuff you can buy from a hardware store and a surplus gun barrel. They walked into the capitol with it and dumped it on the table in the committee room. It's pretty darn easy when you look at it.

Their point in that congressional hearing was that it's difficult to make a military-grade weapon that is highly efficient, but then the problem is that it doesn't really have to highly efficient, even a crappy home-built contraption you or I can throw together could still level a good sized city. The only thing stopping anybody so far has been the relatively tight controls on enriched uranium, but more and more countries are gaining access to that all the time, and a lot of them don't keep as tight controls as we do on how the material is safeguarded.

The most shocking thing to me in Countdown to Zero was that one Russian guy who was in the middle of selling enriched uranium on the black market and got caught because he got arrested by accident with some of his friends transporting stolen car batteries along with the uranium. The only reason they caught him at all was because they were cracking down on stolen auto parts. LOL! It's not as hard as people think.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah since you mention it Stephen, it seems like we'd be better served arguing for strictly construing the constitutional requirement that war can only be declared by Congress and that the President only serves to execute a war properly declared by the legislature. What ever happened to that little requirement? Every war since Korea, the President has pretty much plunged into without approval. Where did that one go off the rails?

[BridgeTroll]

The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys.  Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era.  Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".

Our founders could project the development of arms out over 200 years?  Really? The advent of electricity, computers, lasers, satellites, airplanes, rockets, nuclear power, advanced chemistry, genetic engineering, etc.  More importantly they could foresee the "acceleration" of technological development?  That tech would someday advance more in a decade than it had in thousands of years prior.  That's quite a crystal ball.  I wonder what their stock picks were?  Oh yeah, first they had to predict the stock market.  LOL.

Now back to my question, what might be the envisioned definition of "arms"?

You cannot theorize 200 years from now?  Thats too bad stjr... most people can look at something like the history and development of something and make fairly accurate projections of future development.  Stephen does it all the time with various scientific wonders or doomsday scenarios.

[BridgeTroll]

Yeah since you mention it Stephen, it seems like we'd be better served arguing for strictly construing the constitutional requirement that war can only be declared by Congress and that the President only serves to execute a war properly declared by the legislature. What ever happened to that little requirement? Every war since Korea, the President has pretty much plunged into without approval. Where did that one go off the rails?

I would not disagree with you there Chris... though it is very doubtful this requirement would have prevent either of our current involvements...

[NotNow]

Let me say it again, StephenDare!.  Nuclear weapons are NOT "fantastically simple" to make.  While the theory is readily available, and the engineering is around, there are additional requirements to producing a device BESIDES the nuclear material itself.  "A centrifuge" will do nothing for you.  "A centrifuge" is only a small part of producing enriched Uranium.  The centrifuge process is massive, complicated, and expensive.  Ask Iran.  The black market?  No, there are no known valid quantities of this material available now or in the past. 

Again, all of the nuclear talk is moot anyway.  These issues are for another thread.

"Nuclear weapons" are not illegal.  It is against the law to own certain parts of such weapons.  It is against the law to own a "bomb" (defined differently by different jurisdictions).  And yes, of course I support those laws.

I have addressed the laughable "disarming the police and dismissing the military" point.

Nuclear Weapons are indeed illegal for private ownership by any individual US citizen.  Surprised you didnt know that.

Actually, its not that difficult at all.  You simply have to create a mechanism capable of causing two masses of uranium 235 to collide at a high enough velocity that it causes one atom to create a chain reaction.  There are a few easily obtained methods for causing this to happen.

Uranium is easily found in its natural state and centrifuges simply distill out the uranium to its heavier compounds.  From these are drawn weapons grade uranium.  It is time consuming, and produces relatively small amounts but not terribly complicated.

The problem isnt really the explosion its the delivery device, but, since you are now making the claim that it is impossible to purchase these materials, that pretty much amounts to an admission that your previous arguments about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were just bullshit.   Right?

Im sure Bridge Troll appreciates the old bus tire undershot on this argument as well, but I am more than happy to see you finally admit this.

You did not 'address' disarming the police or returning the military to its constitutionally intended structure of being a sheerly defensive force, called up by the Congress as needed.

I think that if you read Title 18, Part I, Chapter 39, sections 831 and 832, you will find that it is illegal to assist in building such a device, transport or possess certain materials, or possess a "radiological" weapon (note that a radiological weapon is different from a nuclear device).  So, as I said earlier, it is illegal to possess certain parts of such a weapon.  But you are scratching for traction in an argument that is moot in the debate, as I have pointed out several times.

I would argue against the efficiency or even the viability of the MIT device quoted.  It has never been tested or even modeled.  While I hesitate to argue against programs to reduce the proliferation of nuclear materials, I would point out that if it was easy the N. Koreans would be several billion richer and the Iranians would have already erased Tel Aviv.

The yellow cake uranium in Iraq was material obtained by the government of Iraq intended for processing into enriched uranium.  I don't see why that is so hard for you to understand, but your politics apparently prevents clear thinking.  Once again, your "assumptions" are misguided and...wrong.

I do have to concede to you the point on a standing army, however.  The issue should be resolved by the government and in order to remain intellectually honest, I must stand with the founding fathers.

[BridgeTroll]

You simply must link to these 200 year in the future predictions BT!

A few readings of Asimov, Clark, or countless others should do the trick...   Again... Washington was a General.  He served under the Brits prior to the revolution.  He understood the evolution of weaponry and tactics.  Seems rather obvious that a person such as that could envision future improved capabilities weapons including multiple shot, high rate of fire, firearms.

[NotNow]

what federal statute makes it "illegal" to possess a nuclear weapon?  

Yellow cake uranium must undergo complex and expensive processing before the material needed for a weapon is available.  It also takes quite a bit of raw yellow cake to make that material.  The money and resources for such operations are limited to governments because of cost and other considerations.  Of course such weapons should be tightly controlled by the governments which created them.  Your conception of producing such a weapon is not in line with reality.

These are silly questions, and simply divert from the point of the debate we were involved in.  While it has been interesting watching you scratch for some point that you can hammer on, this discussion is simply not useful.  If you want to continue discussing the possible production of such a weapon and it's proliferation, then I suggest a new thread.  Otherwise, let's try to stay on point here.

[ChriswUfGator]

what federal statute makes it "illegal" to possess a nuclear weapon?  

This one;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002131----000-.html

Obviously the government isn't going to grant you a license to produce or possess fissile material just because you'd like to have your own A-bomb in the garage, and it's illegal to use, transport, possess, etc., the material or means of production without a license, so that's it in a nutshell.

[NotNow]

Although I realize it is a subtle point, the smarta$$ in me must point out that 2131 that you quoted refers to utilization and production facilities, as defined in 2132, not nuclear weapons.  StephenDare!, you are a little closer with your Wikipedia quote.  Simply possessing a nuclear weapon without evidence of transport or production would most likely result in prosecution under the possession of nuclear materials statutes.  Actual "possession of a nuclear device" is not listed in the Federal statutes, and in fact is explicitly excluded under the Title 18, Section 113B description of WMD.  Transport or production have their own penalties.  So, at least on the Federal level, it is not "technically" against the law to possess a "nuclear weapon", but it is against the law to possess certain parts of it, as I pointed out in previous posts. 

Again, while an interesting diversion, all of this is just an intellectual exercise and has no bearing on the original debate.

[ChriswUfGator]

Although I realize it is a subtle point, the smarta$$ in me must point out that 2131 that you quoted refers to utilization and production facilities, as defined in 2132, not nuclear weapons.  StephenDare!, you are a little closer with your Wikipedia quote.  Simply possessing a nuclear weapon without evidence of transport or production would most likely result in prosecution under the possession of nuclear materials statutes.  Actual "possession of a nuclear device" is not listed in the Federal statutes, and in fact is explicitly excluded under the Title 18, Section 113B description of WMD.  Transport or production have their own penalties.  So, at least on the Federal level, it is not "technically" against the law to possess a "nuclear weapon", but it is against the law to possess certain parts of it, as I pointed out in previous posts. 

Again, while an interesting diversion, all of this is just an intellectual exercise and has no bearing on the original debate.

NotNow, the word "utilization" means any use of fissile material at all. It means what I said it means.

[BridgeTroll]

You simply must link to these 200 year in the future predictions BT!

A few readings of Asimov, Clark, or countless others should do the trick...   Again... Washington was a General.  He served under the Brits prior to the revolution.  He understood the evolution of weaponry and tactics.  Seems rather obvious that a person such as that could envision future improved capabilities weapons including multiple shot, high rate of fire, firearms.

I doubt that, actually.  Even by the gilded age, the English thought that repeat fire mechanisms were unsporting and immoral at first blush.  It hadn't occurred to them that something so monstrous was possible.

Of course, then it occurred to them that it would make colonization a damned site less labor intensive, but the first repeating firearms came as a bit of a shock.

I am sure all gunpowder firearms were once considered "unsporting".  As a warrior... Washington would have seen repeating firearms coming.  The tactics of the day were a form of repeating firepower.  30 or 40 years later after George died repeaters were a reality.  Even you can forsee 30 or 40 years ahead...

[BridgeTroll]

This seems to be quite a way into the future...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-11_blaster_rifle

[NotNow]

Just because I am as hard headed as you two are:

§ 2132. Utilization and production facilities for industrial or commercial purposes
How Current is This? (a) Issuance of licenses
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, or otherwise specifically authorized by law, any license hereafter issued for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes shall be issued pursuant to section 2133 of this title.
(b) Facilities constructed or operated under section 2134 (b)
Any license hereafter issued for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes, the construction or operation of which was licensed pursuant to section 2134 (b) of this title prior to enactment into law of this subsection, shall be issued under section 2134 (b) of this title.
(c) Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration facilities
Any license for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes constructed or operated under an arrangement with the Commission entered into under the Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program shall, except as otherwise specifically required by applicable law, be issued under section 2134 (b) of this title.
______________________________________________________________________

This definition of "utilization and production facilities" is found in 2132.  This statute refers to facilities, not weapons.  My point, albeit a fine one, stands.  There is no Federal statute that directly makes simple possession of a "nuclear weapon" illegal.  Only the sensitive parts of it.  

Just out of curiousity Chris, were the MIT students charged with producing, transporting, and possessing their version of a nuclear weapon?

And StephenDare!, "utilization" refers to a type of facility in this statute.  And I have answered your questions on what laws I support numerous times in this thread, just read back.

You are both more than welcome to inquire with the US Attorney's Office as to which statute would apply.  Of course no one has ever actually been charged in a case of possessing such a weapon.

And yes StephenDare!, we have proven what everyone knew at the start of this, that the nuclear weapon argument is a red herring when discussing second amendment issues.

On a more useful note, Chris, I thought that you said you were a concealed weapons permit holder.  What is your daily carry weapon?

[ChriswUfGator]

NotNow, your point doesn't stand, it is wholly illegal to own a nuclear weapon privately. We aren't talking about a "facility" you are adding that. The statute specifically uses the words "any" and "utilization" without stating "facility." You are adding that where it doesn't belong. The statute prohibits any use at all. Also, you appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that the statute also specifically outlaws "possession" without a license. Are you going to redefine what it means to "possess" now too?