Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh good God. Saying liberals should be denied the rights they want, not because of any rational reason, but simply because you perceive them as doing something to you that you don't like (the equivalent of breaking your sister's dolls because you thought she was mean to you) is not juvenile, but bringing up the regulation of arms - which is in no way limited to firearms - in a discussion about the regulation of arms is juvenile?
You're trying to be funny, right?
look up all the laws that government have written against the ownership and use of firearms. over 25,000 countrywide. if the state and federal governments cannot even enforce them all, then why make another law?
look up all the gun control acts that the federal government has imposed upon the american people since 1934. I dont want anymore firearms laws. we the gun owning americans have compromised enough, it is high time for the federal government to compromise.
if they want to rid the american people of so called military lookalike misnamed assault rifles, then repeal NFA34 and Firearms Owner Protection of 1986.
when that happens, come talk to me. until then, dont talk about banning anymore firearms and sure as hell dont talk about compromise.
Everyone has their line in the sand. For 'nerds it's gun restrictions.
And this administration is pushing so many different buttons that many are going to see their line crossed.
The US is a powder keg waiting to blow.
They are inching on my line..government wanting to manage my retirement money.
Which is why I have always said that you either support liberty, or you don't. Every argument within government should start with "Does this infringe on their liberty?" If it does not start with that question, then it is tyranny, period.
Which is why I have always said that you either support liberty, or you don't. Every argument within government should start with "Does this infringe on their liberty?" If it does not start with that question, then it is tyranny, period.
(and this is why we bring up extremes)
Doesn't the government banning my ownership of nuclear arms infringe on my liberty? I guess that makes a government that bans the private ownership of nukes tyrannical.
Doesn't the government banning my ownership of nuclear arms infringe of my liberty? I guess that makes a government that bans the private ownership of nukes tyrannical.
Ok, let us make such an argument.
You want to own a nuclear arm?
Can you use such an arm without harming an innocent under a normal situation?
I can own a tank, a machine gun, small ordinance explosive, even large ordinance explosive, F22, Stealth Bomber, etc... all while "reasonably" establishing that I can use this without harming innocents and for the purpose of protection for myself from aggressors be them foreign or domestic (ie the destruction and use of the object can reasonably be localized to a means of purpose without harm to innocents).
A nuclear weapon, along with large scale biological weapons are "indiscriminate" weapons of mass destruction. They are not "practical" for any real use as they can not be used for practical means. There is a reason why they are referred to as "mutual assured destruction weapons". They don't just kill their target, they kill EVERYONE around it and then keep on killing for a period of time, indiscriminately, without control and without reasonable purpose.
Honestly, the whole "nuke" argument is on the verge of stupidity.
The concept of liberty is to protect the liberty of the individual. If the use of a given weapon, item, etc... can not be reasonable applied without endangering the liberty of another (ie killing an innocent is a violation of their liberty), then it is not a reasonable and legitimate right.
There should be levels of governing power that make "practical" and "reasonable" restrictions concerning things that are known to be dangerous without reason. A nuke in the hands of ANYONE is an extreme danger to all that live within the detonation range of it.
All of the conventional weapons out there I mentioned are not harmful, can be used with accuracy and insure that if used with such accuracy, are not a danger to others. Using a Nuke does not share such luxury.
So, getting back to reality, we respect the liberty of others. First and foremost. This does contain elements of reasonable assessment, such as I described with the nuke.
Coming up with a story about how a guy owning <insert weapon> that is "reasonable" in its use to claim that they shouldn't own it because of <insert numerous impractical in occurrence speculation> is pure agenda. It isn't reasonable, it isn't practical, and it is entirely driven on emotion, speculation, or agenda.
Can you use such an arm without harming an innocent under a normal situation?
I can own a tank, a machine gun, small ordinance explosive, even large ordinance explosive, F22, Stealth Bomber, etc... all while "reasonably" establishing that I can use this without harming innocents and for the purpose of protection for myself from aggressors be them foreign or domestic (ie the destruction and use of the object can reasonably be localized to a means of purpose without harm to innocents).
A nuclear weapon, along with large scale biological weapons are "indiscriminate" weapons of mass destruction. They are not "practical" for any real use as they can not be used for practical means. There is a reason why they are referred to as "mutual assured destruction weapons". They don't just kill their target, they kill EVERYONE around it and then keep on killing for a period of time, indiscriminately, without control and without reasonable purpose.
Honestly, the whole "nuke" argument is on the verge of stupidity.
The concept of liberty is to protect the liberty of the individual. If the use of a given weapon, item, etc... can not be reasonable applied without endangering the liberty of another (ie killing an innocent is a violation of their liberty), then it is not a reasonable and legitimate right.
There should be levels of governing power that make "practical" and "reasonable" restrictions concerning things that are known to be dangerous without reason. A nuke in the hands of ANYONE is an extreme danger to all that live within the detonation range of it.
All of the conventional weapons out there I mentioned are not harmful, can be used with accuracy and insure that if used with such accuracy, are not a danger to others. Using a Nuke does not share such luxury.
So, getting back to reality, we respect the liberty of others. First and foremost. This does contain elements of reasonable assessment, such as I described with the nuke.
Coming up with a story about how a guy owning <insert weapon> that is "reasonable" in its use to claim that they shouldn't own it because of <insert numerous impractical in occurrence speculation> is pure agenda. It isn't reasonable, it isn't practical, and it is entirely driven on emotion, speculation, or agenda.
You throw out absurdity, I point it out by illisutrating how absurd it is, and suddenly "verging on stupidity"?
I asked two pretty pretty simple, basically yes or no questions:
1) Isn't banning the ownership of nuclear arms an infringement of liberty? (It clearly is)
2) If, as you say, any infringement of a liberty is tyranny, then isn't a government that bans the private ownership of nukes tyrannical? (Under your terms it clearly is)
Your whole post was absurd. You basically defined any government action as tyranny.
I have stood up for the individual privileges and rights of many on the liberal side, now my guns come into view and many want to limit me to one gun a month, or 10 round mags, or what kind of gun I can own. Now I want to limit a woman to one abortion in a lifetime. Sorry if you can't keep your legs together. I now want one gay marriage a lifetime. Food Stamps limited, these are not in the Constitution but my gun right is. So if you can't keep your hands of my constitutional right I now support limitation on your rights.
In other words, you only have principles as long as they don't interfere with your right to fondle guns and pretend you're a badass.
You throw out absurdity, I point it out by illisutrating how absurd it is, and suddenly "verging on stupidity"?
I asked two pretty pretty simple, basically yes or no questions:
1) Isn't banning the ownership of nuclear arms an infringement of liberty? (It clearly is)
2) If, as you say, any infringement of a liberty is tyranny, then isn't a government that bans the private ownership of nukes tyrannical? (Under your terms it clearly is)
Your whole post was absurd. You basically defined any government action as tyranny.
No because nuclear weapons can't be contained so you are infringing in MY liberty there.
One mistake and you don't just take off your foot, you take off your foot and several states around you.
The government also has to look out for the general welfare and you running around with a nuke goes against that.
well, if people are trying to limit people Constitutional rights to only buy 1 firearm a month, then why not limit other parts of peoples lives as well.
Because you would have to be incredibly stupid to believe there are no limits already associated with the examples given in the O/P...
No because nuclear weapons can't be contained so you are infringing in MY liberty there.
One mistake and you don't just take off your foot, you take off your foot and several states around you.
The government also has to look out for the general welfare and you running around with a nuke goes against that.
Yes - this is precisely why we as a society deny that liberty to individuals. Sometime for the general welfare, the government must limit individual liberties, and despite Nomander's claims otherwise, that does not necessarily equal tyranny.
(I agree with your whole post except for the word "no" - you're making my point, so I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me)
Yes - this is precisely why we as a society deny that liberty to individuals. Sometime for the general welfare, the government must limit individual liberties, and despite Nomander's claims otherwise, that does not necessarily equal tyranny.
(I agree with your whole post except for the word "no" - you're making my point, so I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me)
I can use a gun without infringes on your rights. However, I cannot use a nuke without infringing on your (and others) rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
