Sunday, May 2, 2010

Chris Cantwell Believes 2nd Amendment Permits U.S. Citizens To Own Nuclear Weapons

Chris Cantwell, who is seeking the nomination of the Suffolk County Libertarian Party and the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus to run for Congress from the 1st C.D. (New York), has recently posted his belief that the 2nd Amendment currently grants a constitutional right to all citizens to privately own nuclear weapons. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On May 2, 2010, Mr. Cantwell posted the following:

I’ve had the nuclear 2nd Amendment discussion before and I agree, the Constitution does not define arms, so I see legitimacy to the argument that the 2nd Amendment, as written, would provide such a protection as radical as that may be, a Constitutional Amendment defining arms would be required to outlaw private ownership of nuclear weapons.

Chris Cantwell is seeking the nomination of the Republican and Libertarian Parties to run for United States Congress from the 1st Congressional District, which is located exclusively in Suffolk County.

Jeff Grizlo, a Suffolk County resident who is also Executive Vice-President of Rising Action, said:

This guy Cantwell seems to lack common sense! The Founders could not have anticipated the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Just because the Second Amendment doesn't define "arms" doesn't mean that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary before the private ownership of nuclear weapons can be prohibited. If Kooky Cantwell ran the country, people would have the right to purchase nuclear weapons on eBay or at Amazon.com. How can anyone take this man seriously and actually consider electing him to Congress?

Dr. Tom Stevens, LPQC State Representative, said:

In fairness to Chris Cantwell, he did say he would support a Constitutional Amendment to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons but I am concerned about Cantwell's recognition of the constitutional right of people to purchase nuclear weapons and how many such weapons will be purchased by enemies of the United States until such an amendment passes.

Chris Cantwell was recently elected at the LPNY State Convention held on Saturday, April 24, 2010 in Albany, New York to serve as an At-Large Member of the LPNY State Committee.

2 comments:

  1. Thanks so much for your "Fairness" Tom, But I feel compelled to reply and put things in perspective.

    This conversation occurred on the LPNY Committee mailing list, after Tom made it very obvious he had some completely unrelated problem with me, which remains to be made clear.

    Tom saves it for last, but my comment about supporting an amendment to prohibit the private ownership of atomic weapons was part of the same sentence he is quoting completely out of context, the original text is as follows.

    --
    I would hardly consider discussion of radical policies by one candidate to be intentionally discrediting to the Libertarian Party. If a potential candidate thinks it proper to allow citizens to be armed with nuclear weapons, I think that is something those who might vote to nominate him should be aware of. And on a side note, I’ve had the nuclear 2nd Amendment discussion before and I agree, the Constitution does not define arms, so I see legitimacy to the argument that the 2nd Amendment, as written, would provide such a protection as radical as that may be, a Constitutional Amendment defining arms would be required to outlaw private ownership of nuclear weapons, I would support such an amendment.

    If the candidate were to say that it was the platform of the Libertarian Party to provide its citizens with nuclear weapons on the other hand, this would be discrediting to the Libertarian Party, because of course, everyone must purchase their own nuclear weapons at their own expense. :)
    --

    The humorous intent should be obvious to anyone capable of humor. But the reality still stands that the Constitution, prohibits government from infringing upon "Arms", without any definition of "Arms".

    I oppose the government at any level of infringing on our right to own, carry, or use in self defense, guns, knives, tazers, self defense sprays etc, in any way, including serial numbers, registration, permits, licenses, and background checks. And the argument frequently given by statists in reply is "So do you think we should all be able to have nuclear weapons", and my reply is commonly that we should amend the Constitution to prohibit nuclear weapons, but as it stands, no such exception exists.

    This does not mean I support private ownership of nuclear arms, quite the contrary. There are lots of unconstitutional laws which are necessary. My point is not that we should be able to lawfully own nuclear weapons, but that the Constitution should be brought in line modern reality. Similarly there is no constitutional authority for the FAA, but we need to control air traffic and the federal government is best suited to do it. I don’t want to abolish the FAA, I want to amend the Constitution.

    Finally, Tom states "If Kooky Cantwell ran the country, people would have the right to purchase nuclear weapons on eBay or at Amazon.com." This implies two more things that are just completely untrue, and show that Mr. Stevens has a fundamental misunderstanding of how things really work.

    For one, I am not seeking to run the country, no such position exists in the United States, as we are a Republic, not a Monarchy. I'm seeking to be elected to the US House of Representatives, where along with 434 other members of Congress, I would be entrusted to exercise but a few enumerated powers granted to us by the US Constitution.

    Additionally Mr. Stevens implies that I would be capable of giving people a right. No sir, rights do not come from government, Rights Come From God, to the people, and the people empower government with Privileges. I think it a sad state of affairs that someone as influential in the LPNY as Mr. Stevens would need to be reminded of that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two points:

    1. The quotation you attributed to me was said by Jeff Grizlo.

    2. The following additional comment made by you on this issue simply reinforces the truth of what was reported in this blog article:

    "But the reality still stands that the Constitution, prohibits government from infringing upon "Arms", without any definition of "Arms". I oppose the government at any level of infringing on our right to own, carry, or use in self defense, guns, knives, tazers, self defense sprays etc, in any way, including serial numbers, registration, permits, licenses, and background checks. And the argument frequently given by statists in reply is 'So do you think we should all be able to have nuclear weapons', and my reply is commonly that we should amend the Constitution to prohibit nuclear weapons, but as it stands, no such exception exists."

    Enough said!

    ReplyDelete