[img]/images/Atom_Bomb_Home.jpg[/img]

It seems the argument against gun control will never be won entirely. Just today there was a kerfuffle in the news about a young child shooting her weapons instructor in the head with a machine gun. Some take this as evidence that children under the age of ten should not have access to machine guns. Accidents will happen, unfortunately, but it is important at such times not to lose sight of the overarching importance of the second amendment and its central role in maintaining our freedoms. Nevertheless, in one situation, I find myself arguing against a stance of the N.R.A.

A controversy has grown up recently about the personal possession of atomic weapons: some people have proposed the ban of these weapons on the grounds that they are dangerous. “Nobody needs their own atom bomb,” says Daryll Jones, who is a New York State congressman. “They are not good for hunting because of the radiation, and they are not good for self-protection because they are too big to carry around in a concealed manner. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill other people, especially police.” Mr. Jones is a liberal and a Champion of the Left, but his proposal has received some grass-roots support.

The N. R.A. has demurred. “It is not a matter of the wanton use of a potentially dangerous weapon. It is a matter of preserving the second amendment. Atom bombs don't kill people, people do. Someone has to press that red button. That is the problem. The solution is better education. Less violent T.V. Cure of the mentally ill. This attack on the fundamental right to possess weapons represents the first slide down a slippery slope. If the banning of atomic weapons is allowed, the next step will see the government trying to take away our long range cannons.”

I feel this argument is based on a misreading of the second amendment. In order to understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers, it is important to know that the roads were bad in those days, and there had not yet appeared standard spelling of certain words. This is what happened: Mister I. Gerald Pinckney was writing to Thomas Jefferson about the obvious deficiencies of the United States constitution in the form it had when it was passed originally, lacking, as it did, certain civil protections. Some Northern liberals had suggested guarantees of free speech, freedom of religion, etc., but had not included certain rights important to the South. I quote:

“Dear Tom,” it began, unsteadily, since he was in a carriage at the time, riding over one of the muddy ruts that passed for roads in that day, “...most important of all, we've got to insure the right to bare arms, in the summer, particular because of the hot weather.”

Mr. Jefferson chose not to reply to this letter, which was only one of many Mr. Pinckney sent to him extolling the Southern Way of Life. Besides, Mr. Jefferson was in France at the time, and stamps were not just three cents in those days, let me tell you. Because of the difficulty writing a good hand in a moving vehicle, it was thought that Mr. Pinckney was referring to “the right to bear arms” as opposed to the right to walk around under the burning hot Southern summertime sky, dressed, or undressed, properly for the weather as a free, American citizen has every right to do.

Still another pointless controversy grew up as some people claimed the right to “bear arms” meant the right to give birth to arms—also, presumably, legs, heads, and other appurtenances of the human body. As evidence for this, historians point out that In the same letter, Mr. Pinckney, famous for his recipes for mint juleps and cornpone, had made reference to his trees “having done bear fruit,” which is the sort of ungrammatical remark he was known to make. In any case, there was wide agreement at the time that the second amendment as it was finally published did not envision personal atomic weapons.

The N. R. A. again: “Of course, the Founding Fathers did not envision atomic weapons since technology was not advanced at that time, but the genius of our way of government is that it encompasses all possible weapons that might be developed for personal protection, such as the ‘International Death Ray.'” In order to reach compromise in this unfortunate dispute, it is important, first of all, to understand the Southern mind.

Because of the presence of delightful beaches along the coast of South Carolina, it is not uncommon for a young man to be lying on the beach when a bully comes along and kicks sand in his face. This sort of humiliation often produces a sense of bitterness that can last for years, along with the echoes of his girl- friend taunting him and the sounds of her making love with the bully behind the dunes. The young man knows that that bully would sure as hell have hesitated to throw his weight around if he knew that the young man had an atomic bomb back in the car. “It's a great equalizer,” he says to himself over and over; and, indeed, atomic weapons have been known to equalize all kinds of threats for miles around. Since those halcyon times on the beach, atomic weapons have taken a special place in the Southern Psyche.

Nevertheless, some skeptics have pointed out the disadvantages of having atomic weapons in the home, especially if they are not locked up properly:

1. One of the children may inadvertently sit on the bomb, setting it off.
   
2. In order to lock up the bomb safely, a special steel mesh is required which is beyond the reach of certain poor folk.
   
3. Because of the shock wave, it is impossible to practice shooting off the bomb at a shooting range unless it is way out of town.
   
4. Given the Southern Psyche, inevitably one bomb will not be enough. Soon there will be a bomb race between the neighbors, which is not desirable since in the end no one really wins this kind of race.
   
5. One must always consider the possibility that the bomb may be used for suicide and/or to settle family disputes. The undesirability of such an outcome speaks for itself.

A modest proposal:

I think certain precautions are reasonable, despite the objections of the N.R.A.

1. Background checks. No person shall be permitted to buy a bomb if he has a history of committing crimes with such a weapon. Once bitten, twice shy. Similarly, anyone with a history of violence over the previous five years shall not be permitted to buy a bomb, unless he is vouched for by an adult in good standing with the courts.
   
2. No one who knows a psychiatrist shall be permitted to buy a bomb unless the psychiatrist is a member of the family or a close friend. Someone with a history of frank psychosis shall not be permitted to buy a bomb unless he has undergone a period of rehabilitation.
   
3. No one should be permitted to buy a bomb for personal use greater than ten kilotons in strength (for safety reasons.)
   
4. Everyone should be educated to the dangers of these weapons and the importance of placing the red button out of the reach of small children and pets.
   
5. All atomic weapons should be registered, even when they are given away as gifts.

I know the N.R.A. has objected to these precautions as a matter of principle, but I think the suggestions I make above are a reasonable compromise. I do not, however, think that someone, however mature, should be allowed to buy a hydrogen bomb. They are truly dangerous. They are so heavy and unwieldy, it is easy to imagine someone dropping one inadvertently on his foot, causing a serious injury.

(c) Fredric Neuman Author of “The Wicked Son.”

Comrade DrFred, just to shake up old memories, as I recall a certain young man by the name of David Hahn became obsessed with the idea of creating a simple breeder reactor in his home. Over the course of weeks, he began to collect various household products which contained radioactive materials from smoke detectors, camping lanterns, radium from clocks, in fact he was able to find a small vial of radium used to paint the faces of clocks, along with lithium from batteries and with a little common chemistry cooked up quite the atomic soup but did not really produce the breeder reactor he wanted.

So our little marvel decided to wrap all creative products into a small aluminum ball and by a week or two triggered a Federal Radiological Emergency Response involving the FBI and NRC which concluded Hahn's mother's property was now a Superfund Hazardous Materials Cleanup Site and buried the contents of his makeshift shed lab in a low level radioactive waste in Utah.

So Comrade I believe you need to create #6 to the disadvantage paragraph, "Playing with atomic material may be hazardous to your health or produce undesirable results."

Oh, for Dear Leader's sake. What family needs or even wants a full-size unit?

Get a Mark 54 SADM, something you can keep in the linen closet, carry around, put in the car and take to the office with you. Loads of fun at parties, surprise the neighbors on the 4th.

When atomic weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have atomic weapons.

I think that large nuclear device in the home is somewhat excessive. My collection is much more sensible as it fits neatly in a small corner in my basement.

Granted, the payload is not as frightening, but 1KT is sufficient for home use.

This is why I keep my collection of W-54 Davy Crockett nuclear bombs in my 'man cave'. They are a bit outdated, as they are technology from 1954. Al Gore and Bill Clinton gave much newer W-80 technology to the Chinese, but I am satisfied with my antique nuclear warheads.

They look wonderful in the corner where I hung up a photo of a previous detonation from a 4th of July some years ago - in the old neighborhood.


The Davy Crocket is ideal for home use and display - here is a photo of the original prototype from 1954.

DrFred, how brilliant you are! No other true-believing, 0bama (APBUH)-loving Prog has ever thought of equating personal firearm ownership with personal nuclear weapon ownership! Yes, they are most equally equivalent! Why, you must be some kind of Great Prog,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... DsdVbuxtc0
Me 'n' da boyz havin' some fun

and based on the thoughtfulness and alacrity of your piece, are no doubt watching sea levels fall while participating in Collective Salvation™ and directly sucking the great swelling words of Dear Imperial Majesty high in the airless stratosphere of the 0bama Power Center Itself. Heady atmosphere (and Gaia-Friendly™) indeed!

It is most gratifying to know that you share our recognition that GuvMint agencies and criminals like us should be the only ones to possess weapons. They have no place in the hands of law-abiding citizens (Tearrorists all!).

I am with most loyal comrade Tovarichi. We do not want only criminals to have atom or nuclear bomb products, do we. I can testify that I have never had a problem with my personal atomic bomb and it makes a great conversation piece around the dining table... of course, it is a bit uncomfortable and I must remind guests that flatulence is discouraged, but these are the prices we must pay!

When I was a young prog all the neighborhood kids had decoder rings, marbles, and a-bombs. Harmless. Our motto was, "Be the first kid on your block to be the last kid on your block." I just wish mom hadn't thrown my a-bomb in the garbage. It would be worth a fortune on eBay today.