In general, what kind of gun law do we want?

[atilla]

Doesn't need to be a fancy schmancy missile. A nice briefcase tactical, or even just a nice dirty bomb. A little bit of non-fissile radioactive material and some tannerite, a few gallons of gasoline for the mushroom effect and ya got yourself that partay!

[video=youtube_share;WccfbPQNMbg]http://youtu.be/WccfbPQNMbg[/video]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

similar to the W54 "backpack" nuke... still costs $1,250,000. [sad2]

 

[the_shootist]

Some people should not be allowed to reproduce

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jLvM9kPY9M

 

[Chevy 2 65]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jLvM9kPY9M

WHOLLY SHIT !!!!!!!!! What a nut job

 

[the_shootist]

- - - Updated - - -

"bu**ake of America" You can't make this sh!t up!!!

WHOLLY SHIT !!!!!!!!! What a nut job

 

[calsdad]

I am in a profession that requires periodic medical exams.

If I get diagnosed psychotic, poof! My licenses disappear along with my power to make a living!

Nobody would raise an eyebrow either, nor should they.

Why should firearm ownership be any different.

I could care less about criminals, plug them or put them in jail, preferably both; at least they are predictable and if you pay attention, you see them coming.

It is the crazies that kill classrooms full of little kids or movie theaters full of people, or college campuses full of students that I am afraid of.

Because there is no "right" to employment in a profession that requires a lot of training.

You either meet the requirements - which apparently include regular re-certification - or you don't.

The RIGHT of self defense should not be "licensed" - and there are already plenty of laws that deal with what happens when you don't use that right appropriately.

You're argument is riding a jetski down a slippery slope to tyranny. Because your logic could extend to all sorts of other very basic human rights , like having a child, breathing, eating, taking a piss - etc.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

- - - Updated - - -

"bu**ake of America" You can't make this sh!t up!!!

Classic !!! LOL ....

 

[M60]

i am curious, and i just asked someone pretty much this same question in another thread, too...

what makes you think that your opinion as to what your countrymen own, or how and what you wish to regulate matters? who are you to place restrictions on your fellow man? why are you above me, why do your personal feelings trump the second amendment for me?

as an aside i honestly can't believe that we're having the nuke discussion in here (again). it's straight up ridiculous. even if joe six pack could purchase a nuclear weapon it would be incredibly cost-prohibitive. a minuteman III is estimated at a cost of $50,000,000. even if magpul started making them you're looking at a double digit million dollar price tag.

i'd be saving my pennies.

For sure, Nukes are way to expensive for most private ownership. The more important issue here is rights. No one here on NES believes in the right to keep and bear arms more that I do. I've been riding into Boston to profess my right to keep and bear arms on Boston common since the mid 1990's and I still I am these days just like some of you who put your days pay and time where your mouth is. The subject, rediculas as it is, of anyone believing that they have a right to own nuclear weapons is a far different matter. Of all the guys here professing their right to own nukes, not one of you has admitted that you no nothing about nukes, have no qualification to own nukes and have given any offering of how you will protect others rights to safety when things go bad with your nuke.
You are so busy saying that you have a right to own nukes, that you've completely or deliberately overlooked the fact that the rest of us have a right to insure that your professed rights don't infringe our rights to be safe. The idea that your rights should prevail at the expense of the safety of others regarding your nuke ownership is completely absurd.

 

[the_shootist]

Introducing nuclear weapons into the mix is the cute way anti gunners have of deflecting and distracting from the real issue. It's easily recognized by those of us who can sense bullsh!t

For sure, Nukes are way to expensive for most private ownership. The more important issue here is rights. No one here on NES believes in the right to keep and bear arms more that I do. I've been riding into Boston to profess my right to keep and bear arms on Boston common since the mid 1990's and I still I am these days just like some of you who put your days pay and time where your mouth is. The subject, rediculas as it is, of anyone believing that they have a right to own nuclear weapons is a far different matter. Of all the guys here professing their right to own nukes, not one of you has admitted that you no nothing about nukes, have no qualification to own nukes and have given any offering of how you will protect others rights to safety when things go bad with your nuke.
You are so busy saying that you have a right to own nukes, that you've completely r deliberately overlooked the fact that the rest of us have a right to insure that your professed rights don't infringe our rights to be safe. The idea that your rights should prevail at the expense of the safety of others regarding your nuke ownership is completely absurd.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

 

[atilla]

yet we trust the government to have the nukes?

several of which they have straight up lost a bunch of!

nuclear argument is still ridiculous. plus any private citizen who didn't take the proper safety precautions the likelihood of a detonation is much less than them just marie curie-ing themselves.

 

[calsdad]

Also, look at how many people get killed every year, and then look at who kills them. The most likely person to kill you is yourself. The next most likely to kill you is one of your close friends or family members. The next most likely to kill you are criminals. Mass killings are very very few of the homicides in this country, so if you are going to be afraid of something, choose something more logical to be scared of than a mass murderer.

The FBI statistics show that you're more likely to be killed by a punch in the head - than by an "assault weapon".

 

[kalash]

Introducing nuclear weapons into the mix is the cute way anti gunners have of deflecting and distracting from the real issue. It's easily recognized by those of us who can sense bullsh!t

Apparently it's not as easy as that, since we can't agree on private ownership of nuclear weapons.

 

[atilla]

Apparently it's not as easy as that, since we can't agree on private ownership of nuclear weapons.

yes we can.

i'm for it, and everyone else is wrong.

 

[M60]

yet we trust the government to have the nukes?

several of which they have straight up lost a bunch of!

nuclear argument is still ridiculous. plus any private citizen who didn't take the proper safety precautions the likelihood of a detonation is much less than them just marie curie-ing themselves.

Yes, but the point that I was making is that if that private citizen who didn't take the proper safety precautions with his or her privately owned nuke is your next door neighbor, they will marie currie you along with themselves and you will have no say in the matter. In the end, a lot of good it will have done you to move to a free state. How does that scenario make you feel about their rights? Even if everyone else is wrong and you are right, you are also still dead.

 

[atilla]

Yes, but the point that I was making is that if that private citizen who didn't take the proper safety precautions with his or her privately owned nuke is your next door neighbor, they will marie currie you along with themselves and you will have no say in the matter. In the end, a lot of good it will have done you to move to a free state. How does that scenario make you feel about their rights?

that it's none of my business and it's not up to me to restrict what another man can own.

honestly it's such a stretch, so unlikely... this is straight up ridiculous. as i already pointed out even if private ownership were permitted it would be too cost-prohibitive.

but you know what i'd be doing if my neighbor had a nuclear weapon? i'd seek out that man... and i'd party with him. because he'd be filthy ****ing rich.

 

[kevin9]

I am in a profession that requires periodic medical exams.

If I get diagnosed psychotic, poof! My licenses disappear along with my power to make a living!

Nobody would raise an eyebrow either, nor should they.

Why should firearm ownership be any different.

I could care less about criminals, plug them or put them in jail, preferably both; at least they are predictable and if you pay attention, you see them coming.

It is the crazies that kill classrooms full of little kids or movie theaters full of people, or college campuses full of students that I am afraid of.

As calsdad points out this is a classic Appeal to Equality fallacy. Job certification is not a right.

...You're argument is riding a jetski down a slippery slope to tyranny. Because you're logic could extend to all sorts of other very basic human rights , like having a child, breathing, eating, taking a piss - etc.

 

[mattyw]

that you've completely or deliberately overlooked the fact that the rest of us have a right to insure that your professed rights don't infringe our rights to be safe. The idea that your rights should prevail at the expense of the safety of others regarding your nuke ownership is completely absurd.

change nukes in this to guns and it's every mom's demand action presser ever

 

[Rugerfan]

The first law restricting gun ownership was the beginning of the slippery slope. We are doing the speed of light down that slope now. Let's hope there is a giant ramp at the bottom that sends us back to the beginning.

 

[willbdavis]

change nukes in this to guns and it's every mom's demand action presser ever

Awesome. Give people enough rope...

 

[kalash]

change nukes in this to guns and it's every mom's demand action presser ever

But nukes aren't guns... They don't even serve the same purpose.

Should we remove mandatory schooling and certification for surgeons? Who are you to decide if I'm qualified to perform surgery, right? Just like who are you to decide whether or not I have "enough" knowledge to operate a nuke?

 

[M60]

change nukes in this to guns and it's every mom's demand action presser ever

It does sound a bit that way but I disagree. Moms have and should have the right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of us.

 

[atilla]

But nukes aren't guns... They don't even serve the same purpose.

Should we remove mandatory schooling and certification for surgeons? Who are you to decide if I'm qualified to perform surgery, right? Just like who are you to decide whether or not I have "enough" knowledge to operate a nuke?

that is kind of a stretch. i'd say schooling to be a surgeon is mandatory in a sense that the doctors choose to be a surgeon and then need to educate themselves through school and through training... not that they do it all because government requires it. silly argument IMO.

more down to earth than nukes, but still silly. a bad surgeon is gonna kill people, then they are held accountable. government regulation or not. also the people will be free to choose their surgeon, and if they want a boob job but only have five hundred bucks--gonna get what you pay for.

 

[kalash]

that is kind of a stretch. i'd say schooling to be a surgeon is mandatory in a sense that the doctors choose to be a surgeon and then need to educate themselves through school and through training... not that they do it all because government requires it. silly argument IMO.

more down to earth than nukes, but still silly. a bad surgeon is gonna kill people, then they are held accountable. government regulation or not. also the people will be free to choose their surgeon, and if they want a boob job but only have five hundred bucks--gonna get what you pay for.

If you choose to have a nuke, shouldn't you be taught how to use it? Whenever I buy a gun from a shop they offer to show me it's operation and nukes are just a bit more complicated.

 

[M60]

that is kind of a stretch. i'd say schooling to be a surgeon is mandatory in a sense that the doctors choose to be a surgeon and then need to educate themselves through school and through training... not that they do it all because government requires it. silly argument IMO.

more down to earth than nukes, but still silly. a bad surgeon is gonna kill people, then they are held accountable. government regulation or not. also the people will be free to choose their surgeon, and if they want a boob job but only have five hundred bucks--gonna get what you pay for.

Sounds like you are saying that some licensing and laws about licensing under certain circumstances can be a good thing. What?

 

[atilla]

If you choose to have a nuke, shouldn't you be taught how to use it? Whenever I buy a gun from a shop they offer to show me it's operation and nukes are just a bit more complicated.

i'm sure there's something on google. remember we literally carry the entire wealth of human knowledge in our pockets everywhere we go now.

someone buying a nuclear weapon will most likely buy it just to have it with no intention of ever using it--just BECAUSE I ****IN' CAN! 'MERICA!

or they will know exactly what they are buying and have already been trained, or will train themselves, maybe hire a former soviet dude to train them.

why are we still talking about nukes? now i really want one.

Sounds like you are saying that some licensing and laws about licensing under certain circumstances can be a good thing. What?

show me where i said that. i never said laws, i never said licensing. jesus christ, you people.

it's mandatory in a sense that if you don't educate yourself you'll kill your ****ing patient.

 

[Fattman]

just started page 2 and i cannot believe i can still post to this thread so figure i might as well get it in now..

 

[Squire]

For sure, Nukes are way to expensive for most private ownership. The more important issue here is rights. No one here on NES believes in the right to keep and bear arms more that I do. I've been riding into Boston to profess my right to keep and bear arms on Boston common since the mid 1990's and I still I am these days just like some of you who put your days pay and time where your mouth is. The subject, rediculas as it is, of anyone believing that they have a right to own nuclear weapons is a far different matter. Of all the guys here professing their right to own nukes, not one of you has admitted that you no nothing about nukes, have no qualification to own nukes and have given any offering of how you will protect others rights to safety when things go bad with your nuke.
You are so busy saying that you have a right to own nukes, that you've completely or deliberately overlooked the fact that the rest of us have a right to insure that your professed rights don't infringe our rights to be safe. The idea that your rights should prevail at the expense of the safety of others regarding your nuke ownership is completely absurd.

With all due respect M60, if you replace "arm" with "hunting rifle" and "nuke" with "AR", you have the Fudd argument. Replace "arm" with "phones to call 911" and "nuke" with "gun", and you have the hard core anti argument. Sorry to be an absolutist, but you believe in individual sovereignty and liberty vs. Statism or you don't.

Especially read your last statement replacing nuke with gun.

Answer to OP is None.

 

[Horrible]

The nuke argument is a joke anyway. It is a strawman argument used by the left to convince you that you don't NEED and EEEEVIL AR.

Nuke is to nation as AR/Shotgun/Handgun is to individual.

 

[Neuro]

I want only a simple thing. To have equal access to all arms and accessories that are available to our military and law enforcement. Just like the 2A intended.

 

[browncoat]

This gets ugly - because (there's no better way of saying it) - some people are just damn ignorant.

Sarin gas - is not a "defensive" weapon. Neither are most of the other weapons that liberals try to get their knickers all in a twist about every time somebody tries to defend the Second Amendment. A nuclear bomb is not a defensive weapon that one person could legitimately posses. Neither is Sarin gas. Neither is a howitzer. Or maybe even a grenade launcher.

I believe the original intent of the second amendment - was to enable INDIVIDUALS - to own defensive weaponry of such a fashion that they could defend THEMSELVES - or their country (if they were in a militia). You could potentially argue that cannons, and grenade launchers and Sarin gas and nuclear bombs ARE defensive weapons, and you'd be correct - in certain military circumstances - but if you look down thru military history those weapons are most usually use offensively.

The second amendment was also put in there specifically because of prior knowledge of English history - where the king removed ALL weaponry from the hands of his subjects. And what followed right after that - was tyrannical rule by the king.

I don't think people really do the cause of gun rights any favors when they start arguing that the 2nd amendment should allow the posession of sarin gas or nuclear weapons - or cannons.

Saying that it allows the possession of any sort of "personal" firearm up to and including machine guns though - is perfectly in line with it's original intent IMHO.

This is one of the saddest arguments I've seen on the thread. The intent of the 2A is offense. Bearing arms to destroy a government. That's what it is for. If it was about defense, maybe it would say everyone has the right to bear armor or something. The whole point is that if the government has it, we should have it as a check on that government. If someone believes in no one having nukes not even their government, then saying no citizen should is logical. If someone believes the government should have something and civilians shouldn't, that flies right in the face of the 2A. Citizens having weapons for self defense has been conflated with the 2A, but that is a right that was recognized under English Common Law of the time. There was no need for an amendment. The amendment is to protect the keeping of arms for offensive actions against offensive government, plain and simple. This is why the Miller decision that military weapons are the only ones protected by the 2A makes some sort of (really stupid) sense. To those who think that guns and nukes serve different purposes - incorrect. They both serve to make holes in things. The differences are in the size of the hole and the fallout.