- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,407
- Reaction score
- 19,862
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else just ammunition in a firearm point it at whatever you want to shoot and pull the trigger. And safety. Though gun accidents happen they are very rare and it's simply being in a room with you isn't going to cause you to become irradiated. You can simply lock it in the safe take the ammo out of it and it's perfectly safe you don't have to build a shielded bunker to contain it.So why be content with only guns? You can do much better, you know.
you must first establish that not allowing people to own nuclear weapons is an infringement on the Second Amendment for that argument to work.No. But any infringement is a first step on that slippery slope to Obama coming over and personally taking away your hunting rifle, isn't it?
See above.It may start with nukes, but where will it end? Once you concede that it's OK to regulate or restrict SOME things, you're done with your freedom. Don't give them an inch.
this is not clever. I meant a free state that is a phrase or a combination of words that if you take one out of the context it will change the meaning. You will first have to establish by the 2nd Amendment that you were ever free to own a nuclear weapon.I am not sure what you mean by "free". If I am not free to own any weapon of my choice, how is it free?
Will they potentially give you the power to become a supreme ruler while holding a large chunk of our nation hostage? Search ability would infringe on other people's rightsForget nukes. You know there are lots of other cool weapons that you and I are not free to own, right?
Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else just ammunition in a firearm point it at whatever you want to shoot and pull the trigger. And safety. Though gun accidents happen they are very rare and it's simply being in a room with you isn't going to cause you to become irradiated. You can simply lock it in the safe take the ammo out of it and it's perfectly safe you don't have to build a shielded bunker to contain it.
you must first establish that not allowing people to own nuclear weapons is an infringement on the Second Amendment for that argument to work.
this is not clever. I meant a free state that is a phrase or a combination of words that if you take one out of the context it will change the meaning. You will first have to establish by the 2nd Amendment that you were ever free to own a nuclear weapon.
Will they potentially give you the power to become a supreme ruler while holding a large chunk of our nation hostage?
I'm sorry you asked me, "why be content with only guns?" You did not ask me why ban other forms of weaponry.None of those is a reason to make laws banning other arms.
Yes.Nope.
I know it says more than that.The 2nd Amendment says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Any kind of arms. Period.
okay to follow your rabbit hole, how would a good guy with a new versus a bad guy with a nuke cancel each other out?That only what happens when you make them illegal: only the bad guys will have access to them. But leave them free, and the good guys with a nuke are going to make a formidable barrier against anyone taking any chunk of our nation hostage. After all, nukes don't kill people. People kill people. Right?
I'm sorry you asked me, "why be content with only guns?" You did not ask me why ban other forms of weaponry.
The 2nd Amendment says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Any kind of arms. Period.I know it says more than that.
okay to follow your rabbit hole, how would a good guy with a new versus a bad guy with a nuke cancel each other out?
answer to what?OK. Now I have. So what's the answer?
answer to what?
This question: why is it OK to ban arms other than guns?
Already explained. I'm not doing it again. If you want to say that I didn't or that it was unsatisfactory, be my guest. I offered my explanation. If it isn't good enough for you or you are too lazy to go back and read it, that's a you problem.
Cost, guns are relatively cheap. Ammunition is also very cheap. Simplicity, you don't have to have anything else
that wasn't all of them try again.Here are your answers. Let's go over them:
I already answered this it's in a different post you responded to it if you couldn't be bothered to read it I understand it the first time I'm not doing it again.What does that have anything to do with anything? Especially Constitution law? Does it say you are allowed only own cheap and simple arms?
Stop being lazy if you want the answers I already gave them to you I'm not doing it again you are too lazy to address them when I made them or you didn't comprehend them I don't know.Stop making things up for the Constitution. Either you are going to interpret it literally and in a fundamentalist manner, or you are not. You can't cherry pick. It's not a cafeteria.
that wasn't all of them try again.
I already answered this it's in a different post you responded to it if you couldn't be bothered to read it I understand it the first time I'm not doing it again.
Stop being lazy if you want the answers I already gave them to you I'm not doing it again you are too lazy to address them when I made them or you didn't comprehend them I don't know.
Again that's a you problem.
OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!
OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!
OK. So you are saying somewhere in the Constitution it says you can buy a full auto machine gun manufactured if it was manufactured before 1986, but not after. OK. Thanks. Now I understand the Constitution!
No, that just shows that Democrats come up with stupid crazy laws.
You asked a retarded question I answered it you asked another retarded question I answered it then you ask the first retarded question again and I referred you to the first answer.Yeah, sure. Sounds like you are crying uncle. I'll let you go.
"Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some people's thinking is.
There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US in an active violent revolution. Firearms are not the primary weapons considered. I wont go into details, the books are out there.
Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.
But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.
It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*
Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with replacing that statement with 'nukes' instead of 'tanks.'
Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?