The Constitutionality of Nuclear Weapons

One of the main arguments both for against the possession of nuclear weapons is the 2nd Amendment, which states a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. In this article by Robert Creamer, a citizen's rights to bear arms come under heavy fire. Creamer argues that, since terrorists and other criminals have an increasing amount of access to private ownership of nuclear arms, stricter limitations must be placed onto individuals when it comes to the ownership of such weapons.

I agree on the idea that the Framers probably had no idea of the future implications of the amendment, and that their idea of bearing arms was a trusty rifle hanging beside the door, and I believe that Creamer's overall argument of stricter regulation over the ownership of weapons holds water. I would also like to apply this same idea to government itself. I am not sure what the guidelines for government possession of nuclear arms entail. Indeed, regulation seems to vary from country to country. While the United States stands fairly out of the spotlight, attention centers on countries like Iran, implying that it should not even have the right to nukes.

The point is that I believe in a need for government to be held accountable more for the manufacture and bearing of weapons capable of destroying the world. As the right for citizens to bear arms should be limited with the introduction of more destructive weapons into the market, governments around the world, including the United States, need to put more serious action into cracking down on their own nuclear weapons. I believe that a limited right to bear arms should apply to both citizens and government, because who is to say that government is not prone to the misuse of weapons? A government is made up of humans. Humans are not perfect and do not make perfect decisions. Hence, we need more checks on the obscure second amendment to prevent further abuse.