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.
Nukes are not among weapons typically used by the the Militia, and would not be used by an individual in self defense....
so yeah .........straw man fail.
Ah, so it is only "weapons typically used" not unlimited weapons, you should inform the OP of that. So now the question is what classifies as "typically used?" Bet everyone had a different answer.
Ah, so it is only "weapons typically used" not unlimited weapons, you should inform the OP of that. So now the question is what classifies as "typically used?" Bet everyone had a different answer.
The whole reason for the 2nd ammendment was to preserve the individuals right to self defense.
Who is an individual going to defend himself from with a nuke?
Even if an individual could afford a nuke and find someone willing to sell it to him, using it against anyone would necessitate the killing of many people who are posing no threat to that individual, and possibly even the individual himself.
So, nukes don't fall under the category of self defense for an individual, even though the argument could be made that other, military style weapons such as machine guns can and do fit into the category.
So the "nuke" argument is a straw man because nukes are not defensive weapons....if someone fires a nuke at you, you are quite probably going to die, regardless if you fire one back at them.
The whole reason for the 2nd ammendment was to preserve the individuals right to self defense.
Who is an individual going to defend himself from with a nuke?
Even if an individual could afford a nuke and find someone willing to sell it to him, using it against anyone would necessitate the killing of many people who are posing no threat to that individual, and possibly even the individual himself.
So, nukes don't fall under the category of self defense for an individual, even though the argument could be made that other, military style weapons such as machine guns can and do fit into the category.
So the "nuke" argument is a straw man because nukes are not defensive weapons....if someone fires a nuke at you, you are quite probably going to die, regardless if you fire one back at them.
Nuclear weapons is an arm, therefore if one wants unlimited arms, where is the limit? What arms do fall under self defense for an individual? The Constitution just says shall not be infringed, it says nothing about specific types of weapons or anything about what limitations there should be on arms.
Nuclear weapons is an arm, therefore if one wants unlimited arms, where is the limit? What arms do fall under self defense for an individual? The Constitution just says shall not be infringed, it says nothing about specific types of weapons or anything about what limitations there should be on arms.
Exactly
They are not call nuclear arms for nothing.
Exactly
They are not call nuclear arms for nothing.
Freedom is scary isn't it.
Yes, it is scary to think idiots out there think they should have access to nuclear weapons just because they think the 2nd amendment grants them unlimited access to weapons till the end of time no matter how destructive they may be.
Yes, it is scary to think idiots out there think they should have access to nuclear weapons just because they think the 2nd amendment grants them unlimited access to weapons till the end of time no matter how destructive they may be.
OK, so where does an individual who wants a nuke go to buy one?
"Nukes R Us" ?
The argument is a red herring.
Because Nukes (or other types WMD such as chemical or biological) don't defend an individual from anyone.
This is the problem with anti-gunners using the "Nukes" argument.
They seem to think that, because the 2nd ammendment doesn't cover Nukes, then it's just fine to make the Hurculean mental leap to using the same argument against certain types of handguns, "assault rifles" "high capacity" magazines etc.
But doing so is a red herring because those types of weapons not only can be used by an individual for self defense but are an essential tool for an individual to defend himself against others who are so armed.
This is obviously an ideological argument......However, regardless of how the laws have been twisted over the years, there is no doubt in my mind that 2nd amendment was written to enable citizens to protect themselves from not only foreign invaders and criminals but also from a tyrannical government.
How do you propose citizens do that if they are restricted to "civilian only" type weapons?
The only answer you can logically give is that you disagree with the founders intentions because you don't think that civilians should have the right to defend themselves against those with weapons that are superior to what YOU think civilians should be allowed to have. (government and criminals)
Why should my right to defend myself be limited to only defending it against some people but not others?
Interesting good questions that I have answered before, and hard for me to think you haven't read or considered this answer before, but please do...
I do not disagree with the founders intentions, first of all!
The founders lived in a different day and age, such that the concern was warranted and if citizens were armed as essentially the militia was (they were one and the same in fact), there was something of an inherent balance in that scenario that made some sense, thus prudent for that day and those circumstances.
None of that reality is anything like the reality we have today, because if you are any sort of thinking reasonable person, you have to recognize the power of the military today is very separate, apart and overwhelmingly powerful compared to what American citizens can possibly dream up as an opposing force.
I mean..., even if you and those like minded could go out and buy your weapons of choice, you simply do not have the financial resources to make a gnat's arse difference toward balancing the overwhelming power represented by the U.S. military complex, right? We citizens of today are simply not fighting that sort of concern like 200 years ago for many reasons, nor can we like we could 200 years ago, not by the longest shot of your imagination!
Also, weapons are not even what matters most like once upon a time. Today just the control of food and water distribution makes the difference, not like 200 years ago when many Americans were still hunting for their food, getting water from the river. That world for Americans then doesn't exist for Americans now and never will again! Those who control the distribution of food and water (among other things) are ultimately in control of overwhelming advantages that cannot be overcome by everyday citizens, with or without weapons.
Why can't those with this irrational "minute man mentality" understand this???
Why?
I think it is because facing this simple and obvious reality takes away the "romance" between gun owners with Minute Man Syndrome and their guns. Simple as that.
These anti gun folks would be frothing at the mouth if half of the firearms restrictions were on abortions, gay marriage, or minorities.
At least when it comes to me personally, I am not one of "these anti gun folks." Figure that sort of simple reality out for starters, and you might get to first base here...
Regardless whether you can even do that or not, allowing a woman to choose an abortion does not "infringe" on a woman's right to have a baby.
Allowing gays to marry does not "infringe" on straights right to marry.
Allowing minorities to (who knows what you are talking about) does not "infringe" on the majority...
Nor do the gun-control laws today "infringe" on our right to bear arms.
However, when it comes to this sort of "logic" evidenced by your comment, not much better logic can help you much I don't think...
Interesting good questions that I have answered before, and hard for me to think you haven't read or considered this answer before, but please do...
I do not disagree with the founders intentions, first of all!
The founders lived in a different day and age, such that the concern was warranted and if citizens were armed as essentially the militia was (they were one and the same in fact), there was something of an inherent balance in that scenario that made some sense, thus prudent for that day and those circumstances.
None of that reality is anything like the reality we have today, because if you are any sort of thinking reasonable person, you have to recognize the power of the military today is very separate, apart and overwhelmingly powerful compared to what American citizens can possibly dream up as an opposing force.
I mean..., even if you and those like minded could go out and buy your weapons of choice, you simply do not have the financial resources to make a gnat's arse difference toward balancing the overwhelming power represented by the U.S. military complex, right? We citizens of today are simply not fighting that sort of concern like 200 years ago for many reasons, nor can we like we could 200 years ago, not by the longest shot of your imagination!
Also, weapons are not even what matters most like once upon a time. Today just the control of food and water distribution makes the difference, not like 200 years ago when many Americans were still hunting for their food, getting water from the river. That world for Americans then doesn't exist for Americans now and never will again! Those who control the distribution of food and water (among other things) are ultimately in control of overwhelming advantages that cannot be overcome by everyday citizens, with or without weapons.
Why can't those with this irrational "minute man mentality" understand this???
Why?
I think it is because facing this simple and obvious reality takes away the "romance" between gun owners with Minute Man Syndrome and their guns. Simple as that.
The "living document" argument....really?
Curious to know why you think that a tyrannical government can't happen in this day and age?
As far as citizens not being able to overcome the military, that's a whole other topic.
Would members of the military side with the government or the people?
Would the government ask troops to use weapons of overwhelming force on it's own citizen's, knowing that doing so would endanger or indeed likely kill "innocent" civilians along with the "rebellious" ones?
Would that level of conflict even be necessary?
Lots of variables........but all semi irrelevant.
Because it's not just the potential of their own tyrannical government that citizens have to protect themselves from, it's other governments who would invade (necessitating the need to re Institute citizen militias) but more importantly and more likely from criminals who will not obey any laws passed to limit the types of weapons that citizens may own.
Again, why should any law abiding citizen be limited in who they can defend themselves from?
But most importantly, allowing incrochments on the 2nd ammendment by allowing limitations on what types of weapons citizens can lawfully own only serves to justifiy further limitations over time. So one must logically ask where does it end?????
At what point will anti-gun groups be happy with the limitations that they have placed on the 2nd Amendment, without having to take the next step and the step after that when the next mass shooting or whatever sparks their next outrage of the moment happens?
(and BTW, the soft derogatory tone you are using with the "Minute Man" label you are painting people with is not unnoticed. )
Last edited by FatBob96; 05-31-2016 at 11:33 AM..
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.
