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.
Other than making a bigger “boom” you haven’t distinguished guns from nuclear bombs and why one should be regulated, but the other not. Which is exactly my point
Or maybe you now agree that neither should be regulated.
You can try your mental gymnastics on someone feeble. Not working on me Mate.
Let me know when 1 single firearm can wipe out 10s of thousands in the blink of an eye and hundreds of thousands in months to come
Nukes are inherently far more dangerous and should not be obtainable by the general public for the reasons I had previously mentioned. The country would indeed have the ability to go rogue and start nuking itself and the world at the end users discretion.
I believe that Grassley Cruz Bill would have been passed this would have been prevented.
However since it had contained common sense approaches addressing these issues, tagging pro-gun legislation with it... a fair compromise, was filibustered by democrats, liberals, progressives. You'll find utter disgust for me and many like me.
We separate emotion from logic. We aren't compelled by emotion. I'm not.
Nobody is coming for our guns that we own. But ban restrict access to what we have for future generations to come. Be honest about it.
It starts with wanting compromise.
Well compromise has 2 meanings.
The hull of the titanic was compromised by an ice berg.
Democrats and Republicans compromised for stricter punishments and enforcing laws currently on the books and making it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, while increasing access to weapons for law abiding citizens. More liberty but stricter punishments.
That will never happen so long as there is air in a liberals lungs.
That's suicide for whomever shoots that off. Won't be right away... fallout and such... slow painful death... yeah... someone had a tremendously stupid idea thinking a short range nuclear warhead was a good idea...
In reality, the founding fathers obviously did not foresee the advances in technology. In their time, "arms" meant knives, swords, bow and arrow, and flintlock pistols and muskets with a rate of fire of 1-3 (inaccurate) shots per minute... I am sure even a modern crossbow is deadlier than what qualified as "arms" back in the late 18th century.
As a result, I am in favor of banning all advanced forms of weaponry (who knows, in 50 years we may have plutonium tipped arrows, so obviously those should be banned), and restricting "arms" to mean pistols for home self defense and hunting rifles for hunting. Imo this would follow the spirit of the original document.
Sorry, if the logic is "guns don't kill people, people firing the guns kill people" then it follows that "bombs on planes don't kill people, people detonating the bombs kill people".
The rest of your argument seems to suggest that its perfectly fine to stock up on mustard gas, nuclear weapons, or anti-aircraft weaponry if you can afford it. That seems like a really weird position.
So your argument is that the only thing preventing you from being enslaved by a dictator is the gun in your closet? I must be living in some kind of dreamworld then. I don't have a firearm in my house, yet I find myself with all sorts of liberties not afforded to those citizens who live in dictatorships. I haven't been sentenced to the gulag yet either, surprisingly.
you really are ignorant arent you? that or you are playing on tv. the airlines are a PRIVATE company, not a government, they can decide what gets on the planes and what doesnt.
as for mustard gas, where did i say its perfectly fine? all i said it that it is easy enough to make, i made no suggestion about its legality. same with nuclear weapons, or AAA. i just pointed out the difficulties of obtaining those types of weapons. and while we are on the subject, bombs and poison gasses come under a different regulation than firearms.
if you are living in the US, you are getting the benefit of others owning firearms.
Exactly, that's why democrats shot down legitimate common sense gun control. Because it was a fair compromise. Don't let facts get in their way though...
They're not interested in compromise. They're interested in compromise but it isn't the compromise they portray. They want to compromise the 2nd Amendment.
They want gradual erosion of the 2nd Amendment until everyone has to be reliant on an adult in the room to solve their problems for them. Nope. Not this millennial. F THAT. Nope, lived 28 of 30 years in NY. Never again.
I paid attention to their treacherous tricks. Not falling for it ever again.
In reality, the founding fathers obviously did not foresee the advances in technology. In their time, "arms" meant knives, swords, bow and arrow, and flintlock pistols and muskets with a rate of fire of 1-3 (inaccurate) shots per minute... I am sure even a modern crossbow is deadlier than what qualified as "arms" back in the late 18th century.
As a result, I am in favor of banning all advanced forms of weaponry (who knows, in 50 years we may have plutonium tipped arrows), and restricting "arms" to mean pistols for home self defense and hunting rifles for hunting. Imo this would follow the spirit of the original document.
Who is being punished by sensible gun control or databasing of purchases ? Answer: Criminals
Who is coming to take your Gun(s) - Answer: Nobody
Where does the rule of the Jungle apply ? Answer: Places without the rule of law or enforcement - unrestricted access to firearms contribute to a "Jungle". Heroin is not on every corner but where it is it is protected by guns.
Why is your position the "right" one ? - Answer: Because Fox says liberals are mental and un-American.
Why is anyone who differs in opinion a "liberal/progressive" ? - Where is your tolerance for your fellow American ?
You know damn well that your "sensible gun control" is disarming the citizenry of the US. Granting them a muzzle-loading musket doesn't cut it.
The rule of the jungle applies when some 250 pound high-on-meth thug that you liberal/progressives "rehabilitated" and set free on the street attempts to assault me in whatever capacity. Again, being a small male, I have no chance UNLESS I have an equalizer. I may still die, but at least I have some chance of living through it.
My position is the right one because I believe in liberty for all. My position is the right position for me. You're position is the right one for you. You don't want to carry or own a firearm. So don't. But don't tell me (unless I've done something to restrict your liberty and deserve some form of punishment) that I can't. BTW, I don't watch Fox news. I don't watch ANY news. Because it isn't news. It's propaganda. I have my own mind. I use it to think for myself.
Because I do not agree with liberal and/or progressive philosophy. I do not always agree with conservative philosophy either. But I have to consider which is more dangerous to my individual liberty. Based on past experience, I have concluded that liberal/progressive theory is more dangerous to my personal liberty. I have no tolerance for anyone who is against individualism or personal liberty (which of course, includes certain responsibilities as well--individual liberty is NOT the same as anarchy).
In reality, the founding fathers obviously did not foresee the advances in technology. In their time, "arms" meant knives, swords, bow and arrow, and flintlock pistols and muskets with a rate of fire of 1-3 (inaccurate) shots per minute... I am sure even a modern crossbow is deadlier than what qualified as "arms" back in the late 18th century.
As a result, I am in favor of banning all advanced forms of weaponry (who knows, in 50 years we may have plutonium tipped arrows, so obviously those should be banned), and restricting "arms" to mean pistols for home self defense and hunting rifles for hunting. Imo this would follow the spirit of the original document.
Oh my you're about as informed as limey is...
They did forsee by stating whatever is commonly fielded by infantry shall be accessible to the citizenry to thwart tyranny.
Are Nukes fielded by infantry? Uh... no...Thanks for showing your ignorance.
Plutonium? Now you're being foolish. Have you any idea the expense of plutonium?
Depleted uranium on the other hand... and Depleted uranium is HIGHLY regulated... go ahead get an ounce of it some how and leave it in the local park...
You'd face lesser charges for rape and murder.
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 infringed.
Where does it say the right to home defense and hunting?
And show me where there's a tragedy clause that states this document becomes toilet paper in vain of tragedy.
TheBaldBur, this is a strawman. Using your argument, there is no "limit" to what technology qualifies as "arms", which is clearly not the case, as even 2nd amendment defenders agree. If they shrunk tactical nukes to a size of a .50 cal bullet, surely you would agree that such "arms" should not be allowed to be freely sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Oh my you're about as informed as limey is...
They did forsee by stating whatever is commonly fielded by infantry shall be accessible to the citizenry to thwart tyranny.
Are Nukes fielded by infantry? Uh... no...Thanks for showing your ignorance.
Yes they are. I already provided the link. Tactical nukes were fielded by infantry units during the Cold War in the form of recoilless guns.
Other than making a bigger “boom” you haven’t distinguished guns from nuclear bombs and why one should be regulated, but the other not. Which is exactly my point
Or maybe you now agree that neither should be regulated.
It's a bit hard to defend my home with a nuclear warhead. It's much more practical to defend it with an M4.
It's too bad some people have to get ridiculous. If you can't tell the difference between the effectiveness of a nuclear bomb, an (semi-auto) M4 (or something similar), a Civil War musket, a baseball bat, and a spitwad for home defense and understand which might be the better choice... that's pretty sad.
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.
Not this millennial. F THAT. Nope, lived 28 of 30 years in NY. Never again.
