I don't think the nuclear weapon is covered for the simple fact that it isn't a weapon used to win a revolutionary war. Rather, it's a weapon designed to ensure everyone loses.

The tank and the helo? Absolutely it means that. How in the world could it not?

To claim otherwise is to claim that the First Amendment's freedom of speech doesn't cover speech on the Internet or that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't extent to computers. The Bill of Rights isn't a listing of specific freedoms so much as it is a statement of principles.

The principle of the First Amendment's speech protection is not that you can literally vocalize ideas, but rather that you can communicate anything you want so long as it doesn't harm another person (fraud, liable) or create a major risk of serious bodily harm (inciting a riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater). The principle of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not that the government can't arbitrarily decide to come take products made from trees from you or look through those things; it's that the government must have a sound, rational, basis before it can search you or anything of yours whether it's a diary or a laptop. .

Likewise, the principle of the Second Amendment is not that citizens may own muskets, but rather that if a fight breaks out between the people and the government, everyone's on equal footing. Why? Because the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights had just gotten done warring with their own government and so they understood the value of being able to go toe-to-toe with a tyrant's military might.

So yes, if the military has those things and they're considered legitimate weapons for fighting and winning, then the people have the right to own those things as well. Restrictions to the contrary of that principle undermine the spirit of the Second Amendment by monopolizing force in the hands of the government at the expense of the people. Nothing would have frightened the Founding Fathers more considering what they'd just experienced.

Really? Are you certain about that? Because we've put a whole lot of money, time, and technology to use against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc and they all seem to be doing just fine against that Apache helicopter and its 30mm shells. And those Apaches have places they can safely land and be maintained and they aren't at risk for mass defecting soldier, mechanics, etc. (see how much of that happens if you turn the American military on its own people). And they're up against people who are poor, uneducated, and starving. If the War on Terrorism has proven anything, it's that this logic about "oh well you can't stand up to your own military in modern times because ... uh technology and air power and stuff" holds about as much water as a fishing net.

The Bundy Ranch standoff demonstrated that at least some people are fed up enough to start taking a stand, but are not fed up enough to start taking potshots from water towers en masse. I think if you were to ask a whole bunch of people who would ever consider open rebellion given sufficiently dire circumstances (understanding that some people never would no matter what because of cowardice or because they're benefiting from the power structure while others would happily open fire the moment they thought they could get away with it because they have an irrational hatred of all government - but that the vast majority of people fall somewhere in between there), you would find that they'd much prefer to fight in the courts, at the polls, and at political protests until every other option is exhausted.

And this is where anti-gun folks get confused: they look at the situation in the US today and they can't imagine why anyone would take up arms against the government, let alone be successful in doing so. What they're not understanding is that (almost) nobody is saying otherwise. You have to mentally fast-forward to a future situation where things have become so intolerably awful, so entrenched, so soul-crushingly bad that your average person has reached a point where they'd rather put their life on the line to try and force a major change for the better than continue even at the status quo. If things ever reach that point - where even average everyday people can no longer tolerate the situation - then open rebellion becomes a real possibility. It's at that point (and I sincerely hope I don't ever see anything close to that in my lifetime) that the Second Amendment's value becomes clear to all but the most willfully obtuse.

And it won't be a handful of private citizens with howitzers and tanks that make successful revolution possible (even likely). Rather, it'll be millions upon millions with semi-auto rifles and handguns who present constant, relentless, inescapable, unavoidable pressure from all sides. You cannot end a force like that. You cannot control a force like that. You cannot manage a force like that. All you can do is kill everyone and then you've nothing left to rule.

Much more importantly, my rights are not subject to revocation due to other peoples' fear.

We do care about social consequences. For example, we care about the social consequences of granting our government so much power that it can rule or end our lives with impunity.

The people hold the power, but only so long as they decide to keep it. Once it's surrendered, it's a long, bloody struggle to get it back.

And what about those of us who are intelligent, say that sort of thing, and actually mean it?

Look, I get that it frightens you that we have that right here in the US, but we've had that right forever. We still have that right. Want some artillery? NICS check, tax stamp, and some paperwork to file. (same process for the ammunition, actually) And yet you don't hear about people robbing banks with them or going after the ex-wife with them. Gee, I wonder why that is...

The fact is, most people are simply surprised/shocked to learn that Americans can own the big stuff privately. Most get over that pretty quickly when they do even a little research into the communities around buying and keeping that sort of thing, to say nothing of the history of private ownership of those items (and lack of problems created). Some people maintain the same position they do about all guns: "why does anyone really need that?!" The truth is, they don't. Just like nobody really needs a copy of the US Constitution, or a flag, or a right to vote, or a Bible, or privacy, or an abortion, or running water, or the right to trial by jury. Those are all just trappings of a decent, modern society.

If we start defining what rights people have by what they "really need", we're going to have a mighty short list. What a bunch of old guys came up with hundreds of years ago in the American colonies is that it works a lot better if you ask a different question: what do we "really need" a government to do?

You mean the government? The government did the bailouts after the government drove up the price of housing by pushing for unsustainable loans. It's been HUD's policy since the early 90's that every man, woman, and child should own their own home and it's a fantasy turned nightmare. It began slowly under Clinton wherein the undermining of mortgage underwriting standards began, then rapidly picked up pace under Bush when a solution to the problem was found (getting the bad loans off the books and into the hands of VCs).

The original problem was created by the Federal government's absurd idea that everyone should own their own home (impossible, ridiculous to even consider otherwise). When the market found a way to solve that problem (as it invariably will), we were off to the races in prices as demand went through the roof and supply was left hopelessly far behind. When the whole thing crashed, the government bailed everybody out who mattered.

Why doesn't he deserve a bailout? Because at some point we should stop perpetuating the ridiculous policies that got us into this mess.

Are you suggesting that the art history professors should work for substantially less? That the classes should be taught in substantially cheaper (both to build and to maintain) classrooms? That heating, air conditioning, electricity, and possibly running water should be cut from those classrooms? That art history students not have access to other campus classes or facilities or resources?

Because if you aren't, then what you're suggesting is that students in other majors should pay extra to subsidize the art history students and others whose major isn't worth the cost of a university education.

On a fundamental level, I agree that higher education shouldn't cost so much, but you'll have to speak to the government about that. By pushing every single person toward getting a college degree and providing them what is essentially a blank check to make it happen, we've massively spiked the demand side of the equation. What happens when demand goes through the roof and supply is left hopelessly far behind? What's worse, normally the market for education could correct by pricing some people out of it, but in order to further the goal, the government has provided a means by which anyone can get virtually any level of funding for any sort of educational goal (whether or not it has any chance of ever paying for itself in the lifetime of the student). Thus, an art history major can get loans exceeding that of most home mortgages with no income and little income potential.

Want to fix the costs behind higher education? Pull all government subsidies for students and redirect that money to colleges and universities with a history of successfully educating students (e.g. job placement percentages, 5/10/20-year outcomes for alumni, etc). Further, erase the legal absurdity making student loans the hardest of all loans to kill. That's the other half of the problem. Finally (and this is the hard part for most people), accept that quite a number of low-income students will find some or all higher education out of their reach. This can be partially offset by directing some of the aforementioned subsidies toward apprenticeship based learning (e.g. pairing young adults up with electricians, plumbers, etc).

And what does that do? It spikes the supply side of the education/training equation. Suddenly there's more supply and it's cheaper to do it than it would be with no forces acting within the market. That brings down the prices while incentivizing higher performance for the institutions (who have zero incentive now beyond whatever sense of benevolence exists at each college or university among the staff). It doesn't bring down prices to the point where everyone can do anything they want, but that's a fantasy anyway (as some are starting to grasp). Sure, you can push everything through higher education and they can do whatever type of studies they want, but many if not most will end up in crushing debt for decades unless they've chosen something with extremely high earning potential. And if (as you state) the purpose of higher learning is not simply to make more money, then we're doing it wrong.

So I don't claim to be an expert on this, but unless the videos and various accounts of residents nearby significant fracking sites are outright fabricating their stories as part of a massive conspiracy, their fucking tap water can burn seemingly indefinitely once fracking has sufficiently fucked up the local environment. That's pretty messed up. At the very least, the fracking companies should be required to provide a constant supply of clean, drinkable, non-flammable water in place of any water supply they're ruining. Further, they should compensate the homeowners for the additional risk of being surrounded by enough flammable gases that water ignites. Finally, once this whole earthquakes thing is settled, they may owe a lot of people a whole lot more in compensation.

And with all that said, I have no problem with the practice so long as residents are properly informed of the practice, its approval process, the risks involved, and the path to a quick and simple compensation method whereby they can be made whole in the event of any ill effects from the practice.

Would a dose of common sense do?

Consider for a moment if LA were to increase the minimum wage to $1,000/hr for all workers. What do you suppose would be the impact of that on jobs and the local economy?

Yes, and the riots in the streets of Paris combined with debts so bad the EU is rejecting their budgets and forcing them to reduce their spending ought to tell us all we need to know about that brilliant example.

You're right, let's get ahead of the game now and make the minimum wage in LA $1,000/hr. Better yet, do it at the Federal level.

That should solve all the problems, right? Everyone will be rich!

No, the problem is that there is inflation. It's a tax on everyone that's been crushing the purchasing power of everyone but the rich for decades.

What happens to those who were making $15/hr or $16/hr? They're likely frequenting places full of minimum wage workers and their costs will now rise - inevitably - to at least some degree because of this. Further, they've all now been reduced to minimum wage (or close thereto) by the stroke of a pen.

Beyond that, how many jobs will now cost enough that automating them starts to make good financial sense? How many people with little to no skills - especially those without a good education who are most in need of steady legal employment - will find that their lack of marketable skills make them not worth hiring at this higher price point?

This is the kind of feel-good thing that bring down the middle class, raises some in the lower class (those lucky enough to ride the wave), and leaves behind large swaths of the most vulnerable people. What's going to happen is that people with little to no marketable skills in surrounding areas will get hired at the state or Federal minimum wage, gain some valuable experience, become more valuable employees, and then move or commute into LA to take jobs from poor, undereducated residents. This is an anti-poor measure masquerading as a hand-up. It will drive the middle class further down the chain (by negatively impacting their purchasing power), reduce the number of available jobs for everyone (and especially for residents), and drive many of the poor right into the ground.

Mark my words, within 5 years of this taking effect, all or nearly all indicators of poverty will worsen in LA.

No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.

No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.

Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.

There's nothing extremist about living, sentient, valuable individuals having rights. Whether you believe they're inherent to the existence of that individual or endowed upon them by their creator is irrelevant. In either case, the individual is naturally provided with their rights as a fundamental component of their existence. Once this is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious why no law or act of violence can rob you of your rights; rather, merely infringe upon their free exercise. As limited creatures, we lack the requisite ability to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.

Put another way: you can prevent me from exercising my right to self-determination or my right to self-defense, but you cannot eliminate those rights. You can - at worst - kill me.

Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.