[ExI] Meta question
johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 20:29:56 UTC 2016
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:38 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Is it now perfectly clear why the framers of the constitution would not
> have unanimously disapproved of the Executive branch controlling the nukes?
Nukes? It's often difficult to figure out
what the framers
meant when they wrote various things in
, but one thing we can be sure of is that when they said "Arms" as in:
*"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
they didn't mean AK47's, they couldn't have imagined such things ,
they meant muzzle loading muskets and single shot flintlock pistols. And as
for nukes... well come on!
But it regardless of what they meant when they wrote the constitution the
president is going to retain control of the nukes for the foreseeable
future. We know with metaphysical certitude there is only one person that
can prevent a madman from having total control over tens of thousands of
H-bombs in just 153 days. So I'm voting for that one person because I think
H-bombs could have a larger impact on my life than a mail server, even a
sloppy mail server.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat