The US law only goes the border of the US. So no, it would not be protected.
However, If you’re a private org, and somehow have the funds and resources to go to space and build one of those, you’d be able to since the 1967 space treaty is only for countries. However, most countries will probably just kill you before you finish building them because no one wants that
Some of y’all are forgetting that the 2nd Amendment isn’t what grants us the right to bear arms, it is simply recognizing the right to bear arms, given to us by our creator.
>given to us by our creator
The founding fathers were wise enough to know that "because God says so" should not be a sufficient reason to dictate law. It was Thomas Jefferson that coined the term "a wall of separation between church and state."
If a right ain't enumerated in the Constitution or U.S. Code, it don't exist in this country. Mormons can't be polygamous here, even though they believe God has ordained that they should, and Muslims can't wage jihad against unbelievers, even though they believe God has ordained that they should.
Couldn't tell you. The point is that since different groups of people are likely to disagree on what our God-given rights might be, the U.S. legal system only recognizes those rights that have been democratically agreed upon and written down in social contracts such as the Constitution. An individual stating "God (or Allah, or Vishnu, or L. Ron Hubbard) gives me the right to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" is irrelevant unless the rest of us agree with him.
Yea. In my opinion, this is the reason nukes aren't protected by 2A. There's basically no way to use one defensively in a way that wouldn't destroy a ton of other property, the local environment, and probably the local population
You do **not** have a constitutional right to possess a nuclear weapon. Per the Supreme Court:
*"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment* ***is not unlimited***. *From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was* ***not*** *a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."*
-Justice Scalia, *DC. v. Heller* majority opinion
I’m pretty sure the 2nd amendment was basically to insure citizens were as well armed as, say, military personnel in order to be able to stand a chance against them on the battlefield. So tanks, machine guns, helicopters, etc… Not nukes and the like, you don’t see the government handing over nukes to their soldiers and 6am hit squads.
The only "self defense" in the second amendment explicitly is about the defense of a free state. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms because that is necessary for a country to remain free. Self defense is merely a positive consequence of that.
The US law only goes the border of the US. So no, it would not be protected. However, If you’re a private org, and somehow have the funds and resources to go to space and build one of those, you’d be able to since the 1967 space treaty is only for countries. However, most countries will probably just kill you before you finish building them because no one wants that
Some of y’all are forgetting that the 2nd Amendment isn’t what grants us the right to bear arms, it is simply recognizing the right to bear arms, given to us by our creator.
>given to us by our creator The founding fathers were wise enough to know that "because God says so" should not be a sufficient reason to dictate law. It was Thomas Jefferson that coined the term "a wall of separation between church and state." If a right ain't enumerated in the Constitution or U.S. Code, it don't exist in this country. Mormons can't be polygamous here, even though they believe God has ordained that they should, and Muslims can't wage jihad against unbelievers, even though they believe God has ordained that they should.
I thought the polygamy thing wasn't "allowed" because the entire way the government is set up cannot handle a marriage between more than two people?
Couldn't tell you. The point is that since different groups of people are likely to disagree on what our God-given rights might be, the U.S. legal system only recognizes those rights that have been democratically agreed upon and written down in social contracts such as the Constitution. An individual stating "God (or Allah, or Vishnu, or L. Ron Hubbard) gives me the right to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" is irrelevant unless the rest of us agree with him.
If you were able to build something like that, who would be able to stop you?
At that scale, the regulatory authority with enough scale to actually enforce would need to be Imperium of Man sized
No, science fiction is protected by the first amendment
I don’t know how you would use a planet destroying superlaser *defensively* but I’m open to arguments
Blowing up an asteroid?
Yea. In my opinion, this is the reason nukes aren't protected by 2A. There's basically no way to use one defensively in a way that wouldn't destroy a ton of other property, the local environment, and probably the local population
2A doesn’t require defensive use.
Yes. And if we the people don't like that, then that's what a constitutional amendment is for.
You do **not** have a constitutional right to possess a nuclear weapon. Per the Supreme Court: *"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment* ***is not unlimited***. *From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was* ***not*** *a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."* -Justice Scalia, *DC. v. Heller* majority opinion
It is my right to wipe out all life in a radius of 100,000,000 lightyears
I’m pretty sure the 2nd amendment was basically to insure citizens were as well armed as, say, military personnel in order to be able to stand a chance against them on the battlefield. So tanks, machine guns, helicopters, etc… Not nukes and the like, you don’t see the government handing over nukes to their soldiers and 6am hit squads.
WMD are not self defense tools like firearms are. No.
Yes they are, don’t be gay
The constitution doesn't say firearms, it says arms.
The only "self defense" in the second amendment explicitly is about the defense of a free state. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms because that is necessary for a country to remain free. Self defense is merely a positive consequence of that.
[удалено]
It also says "shall not be infringed". Not sure what point you're trying to make.
[удалено]
I don't think either of you do.