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.
I can use a gun without infringes on your rights. However, I cannot use a nuke without infringing on your (and others) rights.
Maybe you can't, but I can take my small nuclear device to my private island and detonate it without infringing on anybody else's rights.
And forget nuclear arms for a minute. What if I just want to construct and build a small nuclear reactor to power my home and sell the excess electricity back to the utility? Isn't banning my ownership of nuclear materials for that purpose an infringement of my liberty?
Maybe you can't, but I can take my small nuclear device to my private island and detonate it without infringing on anybody else's rights.
And forget nuclear arms for a minute. What if I just want to construct and build a small nuclear reactor to power my home and sell the excess electricity back to the utility? Isn't banning my ownership of nuclear materials for that purpose an infringement of my liberty?
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.
Of course you asked me an "either Or" question, it suited your narrow support of your point to serve an agenda, not reasonable debate.
Your argument is absurd, not one of practical or reasonable means.
That is why you are ignoring my points (dismissing them) and continuing on with your pigeon hole questioning.
Number 2) in your conclusion is not supported by my position as I pointed out in my explanation.
That is, I explained WHY owning a nuke is not a reasonable position as it specifically endangers the liberty of others. Liberty of others is the important aspect here.
Can you make the argument that any single responsible person owning various weapons I mentioned as acceptable is a reasonable danger to the liberty of others?
Again, your argument is absurd, and as I said... trying to force "nuclear weapons" into the argument as a means of support for your point is one that is on the verge of stupidity.
Maybe you can't, but I can take my small nuclear device to my private island and detonate it without infringing on anybody else's rights.
And forget nuclear arms for a minute. What if I just want to construct and build a small nuclear reactor to power my home and sell the excess electricity back to the utility? Isn't banning my ownership of nuclear materials for that purpose an infringement of my liberty?
If you can comply with all the various federal, state, and local regulations you are certainly free and legally able to do so. If you have enough money you can go out and buy every nuclear reactor currently operating in the USA. One individual person can easily maintain a generator, a windmill, or solar panels, but not nuclear material.
Maybe you can't, but I can take my small nuclear device to my private island and detonate it without infringing on anybody else's rights.
Really, so you now can control the weather to keep such radioactive material from traveling elsewhere? I am assuming you can also keep the various marine life around your island from being effected by it and moving out to areas where others might end up encountering it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
And forget nuclear arms for a minute. What if I just want to construct and build a small nuclear reactor to power my home and sell the excess electricity back to the utility? Isn't banning my ownership of nuclear materials for that purpose an infringement of my liberty?
To be fair, I absolutely think you should be able to do this. Though, I think that you should be required to prove that your setup and management of such can be reasonably established as to not endanger those around you. That is what I am talking about in terms of "reasonable" and "practical" use. If you have the resources to be able to show such, I absolutely think you should be able to. I don't think government should have the right to "ban" you from anything unless they can "reasonably" and "practically" show that such would endanger others.
Claiming that a person owning the various guns often discussed and then claiming that by the light of the moon on the 3rd revolution that it "might" be possible that some miraculous circumstance could happen to support the position of speculated danger, well... that is just "stupid". It isn't reasonable and it isn't practical.
Of course you asked me an "either Or" question, it suited your narrow support of your point to serve an agenda, not reasonable debate.
Your argument is absurd, not one of practical or reasonable means.
That is why you are ignoring my points (dismissing them) and continuing on with your pigeon hole questioning.
Number 2) in your conclusion is not supported by my position as I pointed out in my explanation.
That is, I explained WHY owning a nuke is not a reasonable position as it specifically endangers the liberty of others. Liberty of others is the important aspect here.
Can you make the argument that any single responsible person owning various weapons I mentioned as acceptable is a reasonable danger to the liberty of others?
Again, your argument is absurd, and as I said... trying to force "nuclear weapons" into the argument as a means of support for your point is one that is on the verge of stupidity.
Oh good God. I picked an extreme to point out the fault in your argument.
By definition, using government force to ban me from owning anything (I chose an extreme example - nukes) is the denial of a liberty. It is good and proper for government to deny certain liberties precisely because doing so promotes the general welfare and preserves and protects the liberties of others. It's a balancing game.
I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your claim that any infringement of liberty is tyranny. Many times it is not.
Really, so you now can control the weather to keep such radioactive material from traveling elsewhere? I am assuming you can also keep the various marine life around your island from being effected by it and moving out to areas where others might end up encountering it?
Underground detonation. Duh. And do you not think shooting ranges have negative environmental impacts?
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.
Thats what makes this country the Best...your right to believe anything you like. When you and a majority of like-minded Americans come together, you all can change what ever ill y'all wish.
Oh good God. I picked an extreme to point out the fault in your argument.
By definition, using government force to ban me from owning anything (I chose an extreme example - nukes) is the denial of a liberty. It is good and proper for government to deny certain liberties precisely because doing so promotes the general welfare and preserves and protects the liberties of others. It's a balancing game.
I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your claim that any infringement of liberty is tyranny. Many times it is not.
The concept of liberty is not anarchy. The problem with your argument is that it has to exist in extremes in order to even elude to some sort of validity.
The point is to protect the liberty of ALL. To do so, some aspects of reasonable and practical limitations exist. By your reasoning, any attempt to restrict you from ANYTHING is an infringement on liberty. This is a false argument, one made to dismiss.
To respect liberty means you respect the liberty of everyone, not just yourself. That comes with a certain amount of regulation by an individual to insure they do not infringe on another.
Underground detonation. Duh. And do you not think shooting ranges have negative environmental impacts?
Can you control the seepage of such radiation so it does not contaminate the environment around you and eventually have an effect on others?
See, you "may" be able to justify an argument about owning such, operating it in special conditions, etc...
but... we are now getting into the argument of absurdity.
How about this. You get the money to be able to obtain all the materials to do such AND provide a workup of location, environment, etc... to control such with reasonable means of showing that it won't harm another and you know what... I can accept that, but... while we have established "reasonable" in your ability to own one and safely manage it, what about your practical use of it? What practical means do you have for ever having it?
You see, all we have discussed so far is your owning it and testing it in an environment that you claim can safely avoid harming others. You however can not use it safely to any practical purpose.
I can however own a tank, and can reasonable show that I would only endanger an aggressor in a specific situation. I could own an aircraft with laser guided missiles and show how I could practically apply it for the specific purpose of its use without endangering others.
Are you now going to make the argument that you can detonate a nuke and have all the control to avoid any effect it might have on others? Remember, we spent the last few pages with you providing all the conditions of how you could own one and detonate it on a private secluded island under ground with specific containment features. So how are you going to use this when you can't control those aspects under any practical circumstance?
Like I said, this argument is on the verge of stupidity.
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.
