Fatal shooting of firing range instructor by 9 year old girl and an Uzi

I don't think he needs several reactors. No, I'm not assuming he already has all the necessary plant and equipment, I stipulated that he does not. On the other hand, he does not need to reproduce the entire US infrastructure, he's only building one relatively primitive nuke, not hundreds of various different types. And he doesn't have to build a reactor, he already owns at least one and could buy more if needed.

barfo

 

He doesn't own a nuclear reactor.


And you're pretending he would be doing this entirely illegally. He would have to build a reactor according to specs, operate it according to law, dispose of waste proper, etc.

A nuclear reactor is not "arms" so those are not covered by the 2nd.

But you seem to think he already has one.

 

Even if he doesn't already have one (it seems he does, Mid-America Energy says on its website that its power sources include nuclear) he could easily buy one today. He's purchased a number of power companies, he could buy more. Presumably existing, operating nuclear reactors in the US are operating within the legal requirements.

No, I'm not pretending he's doing it illegally, we are both pretending it is legal for him to do it. That's the basis for this entire silly debate.

barfo

 

It's constitutional for him to bear arms, including a nuke. It's not constitutional for him to kill indiscriminately with it. How he gets it isn't the point, but you made it so. It is ridiculously expensive to get one, even if you are a government who hasn't been investing $billions in it per year since the 1940s.

Midamerican Energy is not Warren Buffett.

 

According to Denny. Unfortunately for your argument, it's currently illegal and there's pretty much zero chance of that changing.

Finally, something we can agree on.

No, you made it so. I said that Warren could afford it, and you 'called bullshit' on that and quoted Iran's (supposed) costs, which turned out to be mostly lost oil revenue. That's what started the 'how he gets it' debate.

Of course it is. No one said it was cheap, it's just that your use of Iran as a benchmark is ridiculous, when it includes costs like lost oil revenue and other economic sanctions, and rebuilding bombed out reactors. Those costs don't apply to a supposedly-legal private US bomb-maker.

barfo

 

Congress can pass any law it wants, constitutional or not. It takes a court case to overturn the law as unconstitutional. That there has been no case regarding nukes says nothing about the constitutionality of owning one.

However, the court has ruled against your POV, so... you are on the wrong side of the argument again.

He cannot afford one.

http://cshr.org.uk/en/hr-magazine/articles/5-reason-for-stop-nuclear-program-in-iran/

$40B over 20 years in construction and operation of nuclear infrastructure. They still don't have a bomb. So $40B and counting.

It wouldn't be an easy thing for Buffett to raise $40B+. Who'd loan it to him? If he sold enough holdings to raise that kind of money, he'd probably tank his own portfolio's worth long before $40B.

 

Figured you'd say that. Absolutely true, it is merely a corporation controlled by Warren Buffett. Doesn't really matter, as he could, if he desired, buy a power company that has an operating nuke with his personal money.

barfo

 

Suuuuuure.

 

Huh? There's no court case, but the court has ruled against it? Explain that.
I'm not going to argue the constitutionality. I agree with you that a court could overturn the law. I don't think it will happen, in part because I don't think it will ever be considered, and in part because I think it wouldn't be overturned even if it was considered, but I agree that being overturned is theoretically possible.

Until that happens, though, the law is the law, which makes it illegal, which makes you wrong:

Yes, yes, Warren Buffett = Iran. That's a very convincing argument, all right.

barfo

 

That's not a very convincing rebuttal. Here's one he could buy, Westar Energy. It's just down the road from him in Kansas, he could buy the whole thing today for less than $5 billion, and it has a bunch of assets other than the nuke, so he could sell those off to reduce his cost if needed.

barfo

 

The court ruled the 2nd grants people the right to bear arms (against you). It didn't rule on what "arms" means.

 

I don't see that he would be permitted to buy the materials. And I don't think our power companies make weapons grade nuclear material.

 

Public safety may outweigh individual rights. This is probably true.

The yelling fire in a crowded theater thing is bullshit, though. It is analogous to detonating a nuke you have the right to bear as an armament, not analogous to owning one.

 

I didn't know there was any court case that ever mentioned me, much less the people's right to bear arms against me. But now I am very frightened.

Well, then I guess it's all settled that "arms" includes nukes, then, isn't it.

barfo

 

Arms means all the weapons that the world's strongest military might possess. Until the constitution is amended to say otherwise.

The courts are moving in Libertarian direction, not barfo's.

 

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=6

 

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm