# Wellspring miscellaneous constitutional laws:

## Possession of private weaponry

The `WS` population has a need to be able to capture and kill or enslave outlaws. The purpose of the outlawing penalty is ultimately to make outlaws subject to the dominion of their fellows according to their fellows' whims. If a politician or other person who has been outlawed has access to formidable armaments or defenses, this would render outlawing ineffective as a deterrent and punishment.

In `WS`, private possession of arms is intended to keep pace with the known and provable (by balance of probability of evidence) defensive or offensive capabilities of politicians. I.e, the purpose of private weaponry is not to overthrow the government, but to individually overpower politicians and bring them to heel when outlawed.

We can accomplish this by any of the following:
1. Allowing politicians freedom to possess (or rent/hire) unlimited weapons and defenses, and then allowing private individuals to sue to establish the minimum level of private weapons capability required to, without failure, subdue a politician.
2. Restricting politicians to only employ the defenses of the public police force.
3. Enabling politicians to define a uniform security force funded by govt for their protection (e.g, secret service in the usa), with well known weapons and defense capability and policy, and making the limit on private weapons possession be whatever level of capability is required to subdue that publicly defined security force's capabilities in the pursuit of an outlawed politician.

The 3rd option is eminently superior so that is what we have chosen since it makes it crystal clear what level of private arms possession is needed, and therefore what the legal basis for private arms regulation should be; as well as ensuring that politicians will never become rogue silos of amassed arms. [Define how we should control the soldiers and keep the military subordinate to politics.]

## The "recreational nuke" controversy:

> [Apologia]: While the government is operating subject to the principle of being an enforcer of the sovereignty of its residents, it is not a threat for the government to possess weapons of mass destruction while barring such weapons to the residents since political accountability is still functional.

> [Apologia]: However, when a government becomes tyrannical, there is no functional accountability and politicians feel no threat of consequences from the residents, and they do unleash such weapons on the residents (Assad and chemical weapons in Syria, etc). Under such circumstances however, it is not likely that it would be necessary to extend the right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction such as ICBMs and nuclear missiles to the residents, in order to enable them to bring the government to heel. There is a much more effective measure: we will keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the private residents, but we will also apply this policy to the government:

If at any time, for any reason, weapons of mass destruction are deployed by a `WS` government against the internal residents of `WS`, every single conagent currently holding a political office in the legislative branch will immediately lose the protection of the courts without exception.

> [Apologia]: That should be sufficient to ensure that politicians do not deploy weapons of mass destruction against `WS` residents and also ensure that politicians will have sufficient incentive to actively take action to stop other politicians from taking such action. Weapons of mass destruction are meant to be deployed against external enemies and not against internal residents of `WS`.