How much infringement is OK by you?

Chipper

June 26, 2003, 10:32 AM

Whatever weapons, weapon systems or armaments the military, the police at ANY level of government service, any agent or representative of ANY level of government has in their possession or at their immediate disposal, I have every right to the same or better to be kept in my possession or at my immediate disposal.

It is a right. No qualifications are needed. Certainly none are wanted.

By anyone's acceptance of the notion that you need government permission to own or convey your property, you have given up your right in that property. You have done so freely and without coercion. You have simply acceded to the claim of government that it has an interest in what is, ostensibly, your property.

We can take the time and go through all the secondary reasoning such as self-defense, the government is OUR servant NOT our master, a check on government usurpations and tyranny, a check on the power and pervasiveness of a standing military/militia of the state/law enforcement officers at every level of government/myriads of government agents sent throughout the land to harass and to eat out our substance and any other cogent reason that could be submitted to uphold, support and sustain the basic, fundamental rights inherent in the claims we make to our property.

I maintain that each individual has the right to defend against any and all threats to the individual's property by any and all means equal to or greater than those employed by the person or entity that poses a threat to that property or any rightful claims in that property.

Perhaps this position will be found frightening or beyond the boundaries of reason or too impolitic in a civil society which is what we strived for with our governments and laws and the ceding of certain of our rights and portions of our sovereignty to gain a greater good. To this I reply that no greater good can be found in society than that the fundamental rights of individuals be properly respected and upheld not only by the government but also by all persons who choose to join themselves to that society.

It is only the lesser person that fears the rights of another.

Chipper

cordex

June 26, 2003, 10:48 AM

I was sorely tempted to vote for outright ban.

Jim, I like your forward-thinking perspective.

Edward429451

June 26, 2003, 10:48 AM

Up to heavy artillary I think. If you got the money, why not? I'll back off from the nukes, but why cant you buy C-4 and Claymores at the surplus store?:uhoh: :D

pax

June 26, 2003, 11:01 AM

"The government" is the collective representation of the rights of ordinary citizens. It has no rights whatsoever of its own; whatever it can do, it can do because the individuals it represents have those rights themselves.

If no individual has the right to own a nuke, then no government has that right either.

That said, there's a bit more to the story than that. If my neighbor were standing in his front yard and pointed a loaded gun at me, I would respond with whatever force was necessary in order to get him not to do that. A tactical nuke stored on my neighbor's property is the equivalent of him pointing a loaded gun at the heads of everyone else in the neighborhood.

If you want a nuke, you'd better own all the land that would be affected should something go wrong. Elsewise, the rest of us have every right to respond as though you were pointing a loaded weapon at us.

pax

Since there is no such entity as "the public," since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that "the public interest" supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. – Ayn Rand

cordex

June 26, 2003, 11:07 AM

Pax,
If the HE charges in the core or uranium/plutonium segments were removed and stored in seperate containers (effectively "unloading" the nuke), would that make it okay?

pax

June 26, 2003, 11:27 AM

Cordex,

I honestly don't know enough about how nukes work in order to answer that. I don't know if it would become the equivalent of an unloaded gun being pointed at me (that's bad juju) or the equivalent of an unloaded gun in the safe (no problem at all).

I do know that if the neighbor's storage methods affect my property in any way, we've got a problem. The background radiation at the property line had best not go up by even a single click.

pax

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? -- Thomas Jefferson

bjengs

June 26, 2003, 12:11 PM

In response to stickjockey's point, which is good:

Treat the last poll option as if it says "I CAN have a tactical nuke in my garage, etc."

brownie0486

June 26, 2003, 12:22 PM

Chipper states:" I maintain that each individual has the right to defend against any and all threats to the individual's property by any and all means equal to or greater than those employed by the person or entity that poses a threat to that property or any rightful claims in that property."

That maintaining of yours is incorrect. You do not have the right to place a shotgun set up in your hallway to kill an unwanted intruder. It has been done, tested in court, and you will go to jail if a burglar dies due to your stated above.

"By any and all means" has been tested and it doesn't fly. You do that thinking what you posted and you will certainly be introduced to Bubba at the big house, especially if the perp dies.

Brownie

cordex

June 26, 2003, 12:35 PM

brownie,
When he said "has the right", he didn't necessarily mean "the chaps in my state capitol and/or Washington have recognized my right".

I think that I "have the right" to own whatever property I wish as long as I don't harm others with it, but that doesn't mean that all of the people with badges and the protection / sanctions of a massive legal system agree. Just like some fellers in Soviet Russia thought that man had a right to speak freely, and were deported to Gulags for their trouble.
*shrug*
All depends on if you see "rights" as that which is allowed by the people with the most firepower, or a preexisting condition. If it's the former, there can be no infringement of any "rights" because anyone capable of infringing upon them are justified in doing so by definition.

Chipper

June 26, 2003, 02:41 PM

Cordex,

Thank you for the interpretation!

Brownie0486,

I really do not give a rodent's posterior what politicians, holders of government seats, juries or magistrates have to say. It IS my life. It is NOT subject to the whims and vicissitudes of democracy. It is MY property. It too, is not subject to the whims and vicissitudes of democracy. Nor is it subject to the ill-conceived judgments of those appointed to uphold the interests of the state. I will defend my life, my family and my property in a manner that I see fit. Your approval or that of society and government, of my methods is neither required nor desired. When you, judges, the holders of politcal office or society in general are appointed or elected as god over me, I will be the first to let know. Otherwise do not attempt to assume the position on your own as you will be sorely disappointed.

Chipper

brownie0486

June 26, 2003, 03:14 PM

Chipper,
You can feel that way but thats not the way it is in reality.

You will be accountable to the state for your actions as others have in the past [ the scenario with the shotgun I gave ].

Theories and reality are usually quite different.

You could always expouse that rhetoric to the jury who would probable feel sorry for you but then have to find you guilty anyway and send you away on the basis of facts and the merits therof based on law.

Though I'm not saying you would use the scenario of the shotgun, it has ocurred and they have gone to jail for murder.

I commend your views but you really need to work within the confines of the law like the rest of us. Of course you may choose not to but then do not be surprised when you end up meeting Bubba.

I myself could care less how you run your life and have not indicated otherwise, you apparently took offense to my suggesting a scenario that has ocurred several times in the past and relating the outcomes of those actions by others as a way to demonstrate your stated "By any and all means".

In theory I should be able to do anything I want if it harms no one else, but of course that isn't how it works in reality is it?

you state "It is MY property. It too, is not subject to the whims and vicissitudes of democracy". BTW--You do pay property taxes every year right? Isn't that subject to someone elses whim or do you voluntarily give them the money every year.

Brownie

Brownie

Tamara

June 26, 2003, 03:22 PM

These two guys are standing in Auschwitz.

One says "We have the right to be free; there's no reason for us to be in here."

The other one responds:
You can feel that way but thats not the way it is in reality.

"The way it is" and "the way it should be" are two different things, and one will never become the other as long as we meekly accept it without complaint. :scrutiny:

you state "It is MY property. It too, is not subject to the whims and vicissitudes of democracy". BTW--You do pay property taxes every year right? Isn't that subject to someone elses whim or do you voluntarily give them the money every year.

Does he do it voluntarily, or does he do it under threat of confiscation, imprisonment and possibly death? If he owns his property, why should he continue to have to rent it from the government like a medieval serf or Reconstruction-era sharecropper?

June 26, 2003, 03:32 PM

Big difference between what is right and what is, brownie.

- Gabe

brownie0486

June 26, 2003, 03:35 PM

I'm not sure why he needs to rent it, that may be a question for the legislators in his locale.

I was merely pointing out that he was not correct in his assessment about "It is MY property. It too, is not subject to the whims and vicissitudes of democracy", as clearly it is if he pays them thar taxes.

Not many people have gone to prison for non payment of property taxes that I'm aware of.

You can always run for office and work to change the laws you feel are unfair to you and others. That is also the American way I believe isn't it?

Brownie

brownie0486

June 26, 2003, 03:39 PM

GRD :
I thought I covered that with this-"You can feel that way but thats not the way it is in reality."

Yes I know the difference, but hypothesizing what one has the right to do and what one can do are usually different, and I merely gave an example of that using the shotgun sceanario and the property taxes.

I don't agree with many of the laws as well, that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore them or talk like they don't exist and won't affect the outcome of my actions.

Brownie

June 26, 2003, 03:56 PM

I don't think anyone here is ignoring the law either...well except for a few laws. ;)

It's just that, semantically, you make it sound as if because the law says you don't have a right to something, you don't have a right to it. That's incorrect. If the law prevents you from exercising your rights, you're oppressed. But you still have those rights.

Just a semantic issue, I'm sure.

- Gabe

bjengs

June 26, 2003, 08:17 PM

The tactical nuke thing is purely academic, since we're unlikely to see enough freedom in our time to contemplate such things.

So, lumping the last two categories together, we're looking at 60% "no substantial restrictions" and 40% who think otherwise.

I wonder if it is a strict adherence to the "keep and BEAR arms" that 40% of the people who have voted think you should not be permitted to own a cannon. I find that depressing. :uhoh:

Chipper

June 26, 2003, 09:10 PM

Brownie0486,

I don't know what to tell you brownie0486. The poll asked where I stood on registration. I answered and made my opinion known. Now you claim that I have a disconnect with reality. I will counter with the same toward you. If you have no understanding of the fundamental rights in property then you are without solid ground in any further discovery or use of rights. You have been disconnected from what is, by nature, yours.

Without property rights, how can you have society? How can you have any basis to discern right from wrong? How can you separate moral from immoral? How can you know what is just and what is unjust? Without these, what then would even be the point of attempting to initiate or join society?

It is the property right that defines the boundaries which allow for society. This boundary is is first made by our very being. The flesh. The body of the individual is the first boundary encountered. Even in the family it separates and makes unique each individual.

This not a philosophy or a fantasy. It is a true practicality of life. The basis of reality of life on earth. Take it for what it is and develop it in any manner you choose. But, remember, nations and states and laws will all bring with them their own burdens and the greater number of laws and regulations do far more to undermine their own stated purposes of securing those rights than the breaking of those laws. It is also true that not one among all the governments that have been on the earth until this time, not even our own constitution and government, have been found to be the most likely to provide what is considered to be justice or to guard jealously the freedoms and liberties of the people who join in society under the rule of government. Given this fact then, the quest goes on for better society and better rule.

Chipper

Bruce H

June 26, 2003, 09:47 PM

What practical purpose does a nuke have? The same can be said for WMD's of any style. Can they be used to remove individual targets without harming surrounding areas? Field artillery is really in the same boat. Civil War era cannons shooting solid projectiles might as well be in the same class as rifles. There should be no restrictions on small arms 20mm and under period. Owning something just because you can and most others can't is just a case of big headed selfishness and petty jealousy, especially something with no real useful purpose. But if you want to be in the same vein as Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Muguabe, or any of several others in the world knock yourself out.

Tamara

June 26, 2003, 10:01 PM

What practical purpose does a nuke have?

What practical purpose does enough dynamite to clear the site for Hoover Dam have?

More importantly, what business does the government have not letting you own a death ray, as long as you aren't violating other people's rights with it?

Also, if nukes have no practical purpose, why do I own so many of them? (Granted, my employees in baby blue uniforms won't let me touch my nukes, but still...) (Government of the ______, by the ______, and for the ______. Last I checked, I was the ______. ;) )

Ian

June 26, 2003, 10:12 PM

Remember that banning nuclear weapons has consequences beyond simply ownership of nuclear weapons. Such a ban will invariably reastrict all possession of radioactive materials - and this seriously compromises efforts to develop anything else related to nuclear fission or fusion. Cheap and clean power comes to mind.

Jim March also makes an excellent point that when commercial space travel becomes readily available in the coming years (and it most certainly will, despite NASA's best efforts to stop it) nukes will be a major resource. Power, propulsion, and mining are the major three off-planet uses for nukes.

Bruce H

June 26, 2003, 10:35 PM

The practical purpose of enough dynamite to clear the spot for the Hoover Dam was to build the Hoover Dam. They could have used a nuke for the same purpose if they had been available but everybody trying to work there would have died before they had a chance to accomplish much. With present uses a nuke is only good for intimidation and nothing else. We are talking weapons here not electricity or propulsion.

Ian

June 26, 2003, 10:39 PM

Yeah, nobody is suggesting banning nuclear power. But the bans on nukes that people support would have (and do have) the direct effect of effectively prohibiting nuclear power. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Edward429451

June 26, 2003, 10:51 PM

So where would uranium bullets fall out in classification? (as if I cant guess.:rolleyes:)

I read a really good article on uranium bullets. A one square foot block of it is well over a thousand pounds. This throws kinetic energy through the roof as far as projectiles are concerned. They have to have a special coating so they don't catch fire or explode in the barrel from the friction, the coating is scraped off by the barrel mostly so upon impact the heat of compression transfered and amplified by the uranium, it literally melts holes in steel as it passes through which is why its so effective as anti tank rounds. It blows holes right through it. As I understand it, uranium bullets are totally safe to handle also...

The russian army went to uranium bullets exclusively. (This was from a 1970 book, unknown if they still issue them as standard today.)

I want some!!:p

Bruce H

June 26, 2003, 10:59 PM

As long as they were 20mm and under who gives a rats posterior if they are uranium or not. A projectile is a projectile. Now if it explodes on impact?

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 02:39 AM

A projectile is a projectile.

But only if under 20mm? :confused:

;)

MicroBalrog

June 27, 2003, 07:17 AM

People always ask me, so why not nukes?
I always answer: If you have a gun, it is almost certain you will fire - but not necessarily to harm an innocent person, i.e. plinking, self-defense, etc., therefore presumption of innocence applies and society should assume you want to fire at other stuff rather than innocent peope.
On the other hand, there's absolutely NO way to use a nuke or WMD without harming innocents.

Bruce H

June 27, 2003, 08:22 AM

Chris Rhines

June 27, 2003, 09:25 AM

MicroBalrog -

On the other hand, there's absolutely NO way to use a nuke or WMD without harming innocents. This is not true. Nuclear weapons can be used in orbit, or in various applications in deep-well and undersea mining, or in a few other applications where fallout can be controlled. None of these cases would harm innocents.

As for other WMDs, chemical and biological, they all have various research uses.

Irregardless, since the mere possession of a WMD does not imply any particular use, mere possession cannot be a crime in the moral sense of the word.

Pax -

You posed a good question: I don't know if it would become the equivalent of an unloaded gun being pointed at me (that's bad juju) or the equivalent of an unloaded gun in the safe (no problem at all). I know a small bit about the construction of nuclear weapons. For the purposes of analogy, decoring a nuclear warhead would be the equivilent of taking a gun and cutting it apart with a waterjet cutter. It could be repaired, but it would take time, skill, and sophisticated equipement.

An American-made nuclear warhead in lockdown mode, for another example, would be much like having a loaded gun placed in the most sophisticated, secure safe that mankind has ever concieved.

- Chris

MicroBalrog

June 27, 2003, 10:00 AM

OK, I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T have them but they don't have the right to. The 2nd only covers non-WMD's, IMHO. However, I do believe that people wanting to use nuclear charges for non-weapon purposes should be allowed to.

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 10:05 AM

Go ahead and own anything you want but let me see you take out one individual prairie dog and not destroy the whole village with a nuke, field artillery, naval guns or whatever.

There's a bag limit on prairie dogs? :scrutiny:

;)

Prairie dog hunting is not protected by the Second Amendment. (Although it is protected by the Ninth Amendment.) The ownership of a 155mm self-propelled howitzer and a bunch of FASCAM shells is more protected by the Second Amendment than any cowboy action revolver, benchrest rifle, Perazzi trap gun, or Hammerli free pistol. US v Miller specifically pointed out that the Second applied to weapons of militia use. My local national guard units have Bradleys and Kiowa Warriors, but are notably short on lever-action deer rifles.

cordex

June 27, 2003, 10:18 AM

Pretty much starting to sound like Scott and Dr. Evil. Go ahead and own anything you want but let me see you take out one individual prairie dog and not destroy the whole village with a nuke, field artillery, naval guns or whatever. Practicalities people.
So .... whether or not a given weapons system could - in practical theory - be used to kill one individual prairie dog should define the lawfulness of that device?
Very interesting.

Could be done with field arty or naval guns. Might be harder with a nuke ...

So, can you explain the logic behind this Law of the Prairie Dog?

Edit:
Darn ... Tam beat me to it.

June 27, 2003, 11:03 AM

ZERO infringement.
Don't believe in gun laws-period.

pax

June 27, 2003, 11:13 AM

What practical purpose does a nuke have?
Ahhhh, the old "why do you need ...." argument. :D Seems folks on this forum have gone 'round and 'round about that question before -- haven't we?

The right to own property does not require that you see a need for something your neighbor owns. The gizmo may be completely useless in any normal sense, but he's still got a right to own it -- as long as he harms no one with it.

Elsewise, we could all be wandering through each other's houses saying things like, "What practical purpose does this thing here have? Get rid of it!"

pax

I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago. When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions, someone else said, "Where are they all going to go? It's not like you need a computer in every doorknob!" Years later, I went back to the same hotel. I noticed the room keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors. There was a computer in every doorknob. -- Danny Hillis

June 27, 2003, 11:25 AM

<click-light bulb on>
pax , just figured out why 5 kids, you and hubby finally got a line on a used battleship-right? ;)

Bruce H

June 27, 2003, 11:38 AM

Well I'll be, this is an adult day care facility. Haven't seen this much" its mine, you can't have it, I want it and by god I'm going to own it" silliness since watching four year olds. Nobody has it all and nobody needs it all. Better find out what is sufficient before there is nothing to be sufficient with.

The Law of the prairie dog analogy is just like target shooting. Hunting has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want it all get yourself into a uniform and practice with the troops. Hey that's the ticket, everybody in uniform. No civilians we are all military they we can have it all. Oh wait, what about the well regulated militia part.

We aren't talking waterbeads or blenders here. We are talking about weapons that have very little use to an individual.

Chipper

June 27, 2003, 11:58 AM

Anybody ever notice how in these types of discussions, the extreme positions are always argued over? Why does no one ever question the practicalities or justifications of governments having control over WMDs? They use the money that they stole from us and purchase all of these horrible WMDs yet few bother to question it. A government is far more likely to use any and all weapons than are individuals. Even with the extremely high murder rates in DC, Gary Indiana or even LA California, the American government has killed far, far more people and destroyed or damaged more lives and property than all of the so-called criminals in the world combined. If we were as vigorous in questiong the motives and challenging the justifications offered by government for weapons and their use as we are of the individuals on this and so many other boards, why there might be, just maybe, far less use of these WMDs or any other weapon by the governments and their agents and representatives.

From the issue police .38 revolver all the way up to the federal arsenal of nuclear weapons, a government allegedly of the people, by the people and for the people poses far more of a threat to me and others in this nation and around the world than any burglar, home invader, robber, murderer, rapist or kidnapper. Yet, few question the government's need or control of these weapons. Even with this wide array of weaponry the government fails to control crime, continually intervenes in the conflicts of other nations which only serves to exacerbate the conflict and invite the consequences of the government's involvement to our shores.

Quite honestly you are right. I have no need of a nuclear weapon. I have no place to touch one off. I couldn't afford the maintenance and upkeep. As a matter of fact, I couldn't even afford to buy one. Even if I could, I have no place to store it. To me it would be a very impractical piece of property. I also really think that Bill Gates or even George Soros would be hard-pressed to find a practical use for a nuke even though they could handle the financial end. Nevertheless, the question remains one of rights and control not of want or need.

Chipper

Bruce H

June 27, 2003, 01:08 PM

Just like right here. We spend all of our time fighting amongst each other instead of being in the face of those we elect to represent us. Of course we have the VPC, the Brady Campaign, the NRA, the GOA all telling us what to believe and do. Keeps the pot boiling and the money flowing in. Everybody needs to ask themselves what all the organizations that they monitarily support have really done for them. The honest answer would be really surprising. Individuals can make far more progress. Jim March comes to mind, and I support him.

Drop the I want and try a little reality. If all the congresscritters had to listen to the same sermons we all preach here they might pay a little more attention. Especially if they heard it from enough different people and places.

mattd

June 27, 2003, 01:22 PM

If Nukes and VX gas are legel, it does not mean they will be easier to buy.

jsalcedo

June 27, 2003, 02:11 PM

The US government has nukes for the exact same reason we have a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot in the bedroom closet..deterrence.

Nukes pointed at the USSR kept us free and at relative peace for 40+ years during the cold war just like a homeowner standing on his front porch with a 12 gauge keeps gangs of hooligans and ne'er do wells at bay..

No we don't need tactical nukes or WMD but laws against having them
aren't going to keep terrorists from buying a suitcase nuke from a starving
guard at a delapidated russian storage facility.

WMD are bad and I don't want them but anyone can accidentally pour bleach and other cleaners into their toilet and accidentally make one.

Hell, they show how to make chemical bombs on public access.

Do laws against ownership ever make a hill of beans difference on someone bent on doing something really bad?

That Japanese death cult that did the WMD subway attack is a prime example. Its not the fact of what they used and the legality of the poison cocktail its about the motive and the plan to kill as many people as posssible.

Isn't mass murder already illegal?

Just take your logic of how firearms laws are useless against criminals and expand that thinking to laws against owning military equipment WMD's or Nukes.

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 02:17 PM

When your counterarguments are reduced to ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum, it's a signal to reexamine your premise.

Just a thought. :)

(Have you found in the Constitution where the fed.gov derives its authority to regulate weapons owned by the citizenry yet? I sure haven't.)

Sleeping Dog

June 27, 2003, 02:19 PM

I like the idea of owning and shooting artillery pieces. A good game of "mortar bocci" might be fun.

But I stopped there. Nobody has invented a three-gun game covering the gamut of chemical, biological, radiological WMD's. I wouldn't eat what I killed with those types of weapons.

Regards.

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 02:23 PM

I wouldn't eat what I killed with those types of weapons.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "three-gun games" or "Eating What You Killed". :)

pax

June 27, 2003, 02:49 PM

Bruce,

The reason 4 year olds get like that is because so few people respect them or their property rights. When they are taken seriously and their property rights respected, they don't sound like that.

pax

A society in which adults are estranged from the world of children, and often from their own childhood, tends to hear children's speech only as a foreign language, or as a lie. Children have been treated. as congenital fibbers, fakers and fantasisers. -- Beatrix Campbell

MicroBalrog

June 27, 2003, 02:52 PM

You know, I kind of think a good ABM system is better then nukes - simply because imagine if Putin goes nuts and nukes the U.S.
Let's say Putin just nuked America and obliterated, say, Kalifornia and Massachustets.
Would you press the red button to kill him and millions of innocents who have nothing to do with you or him? It's useless to have a weapon which you know you can't use.

Bruce H

June 27, 2003, 04:58 PM

I'm not going to reexamine anything. If you want to go on deluding yourselves into thinking anything but death is absolute, go ahead.

cordex

June 27, 2003, 05:13 PM

Bruce,
Don't be mistaken. I - and I expect, a number of the others who disagree with your arbitrary designations of what is acceptable by law - believe very strongly in absolutes.

The NAP is one such absolute.

Marko Kloos

June 27, 2003, 05:36 PM

If the Second Amendment truly constitutes a fail-safe device on the Constitution to protect the citizenry against government tyranny, the citizenry must have unrestricted access to every single piece of hardware available to the military. U.S. vs. Miller showed that the Supreme Court supported that view at least once upon a time.

"The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting."

If you believe in that, you can't argue against private ownership of warships, artillery pieces, and machine guns.

If you don't believe in that, you can't argue against liberal attempts to take everything away that may conceivably have a function not suitable for taking fowl or slaying Bambi.

There's no middle ground here.

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 05:50 PM

It does sound like there's a tantrum going on here, all right. One of us is running around yelling "four year olds", "day care center", "deluding", "try a little reality", while the other is arguing from premise and providing proofs. I'll leave you to figure out which is which. :)

El Tejon

June 27, 2003, 06:00 PM

Tamara, to answer your question, .gov's authority to regulate flows from the "plenary power" of the commerce clause, the big hammer of unlimited government.:uhoh:

Tamara

June 27, 2003, 06:05 PM

You know that, and I know that, but maybe you should explain to these nice people that the fed.gov's thin authority to pass national gun control legislation stems from one line in the Constitution that says "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

I wonder how many have even read Article One, Section 8? :confused:

El Tejon

June 27, 2003, 06:16 PM

Tamara, oh, sorry, you asked and I thought I was helping.

How many in Congress have read the Constitution? Very few. The Constitution has nothing to do with our government, especially the legisative branch.

To keep my post on the thread: you first have to define what is protected. Protected arms are all matters of small arms, emmagees, smgs, rifle, carbine, shotgun, pistol, edged weapons, blunt weapons, etc. Those weapons receive absolute (as the Justice Douglas said) protection.` No govermental interference in purchase, sale, or ownership.

Carrying and use could arguably be subject to the First Amendment's "time, manner, place" test.

Chipper

June 27, 2003, 07:47 PM

El Tejon and Tamara,

Careful! You do not want to burst any illusions here. You are treading on thin ice by exposing the truth of the constitution and how this government really does, for the most part, stay within it's bounds, such as they are.

Chipper

Bruce H

June 27, 2003, 08:11 PM

OK I'll slink back into my hole. Go ahead and go for everything. Own all the nukes and anything else you want. I want to see the aftermath of a ND or AD by some idiot cleaning their nuke. Should make a real good news story. Have fun.

Marko Kloos

June 27, 2003, 08:28 PM

Reductio ad absurdum.

bjengs

June 28, 2003, 03:39 AM

bjengs

June 28, 2003, 03:45 AM

Okay, who's the joker who voted for outright ban? :rolleyes:

mattd

June 28, 2003, 12:10 PM

So out of 162, only 49 people belive in the bill of rights?

stevelyn

June 28, 2003, 01:25 PM

Those advocating nukes and WMDs on principle that they are covered under 2A, I would have to ask about the practicality having such devices.

First, just who would you use them on, and under what authority would you use them?
Secondly if you did use one, how are you going to deliver it?:rolleyes:

pax

June 28, 2003, 03:05 PM

First, just who would you use them on, and under what authority would you use them?
Secondly if you did use one, how are you going to deliver it?
First -- no one, unless I thought it necessary. Just like my gun.

First-and-a-half -- my own. Whose else? If it is my property, it would be my responsibility and no one else's how I used it. Just like my gun.

Secondly -- what? You mean you would outlaw rockets and airplanes, too??

pax

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson

jsalcedo

June 28, 2003, 03:08 PM

There is no practicality to having them but thats not the point.

Before WMD were illegal did anyone ever have them?

The laws against WMD did not stop the anthrax attacks in the US.

Laws against possesion are pointless. The only ones who obey are the ones who would never use one anyway.

brownie0486

June 28, 2003, 03:29 PM

"it would be my responsibility and no one else's how I used it. Just like my gun."

Where does it say anywhere I need to trust you or can't question your responsibility with a WMD item, when if you have an ND with one we all die within a 20 mile readius?

Isn't that a right I have somewhere in the bill of rights?

Am I not to be secure in my liberty? Somehow I wouldn't feel secure, nor could you convince me I'm secure if you had one. If you did have an ND excercising your rights you would not be taking mine [ liberty ] away by doing so?

Oh ya, I forgot, you would feel bad about it, might even apologize to my extended family in another state. I know you would take responsibility for it as well right?

Tell me how you would take responsibility for such an ND with a WMD please.
Could the courts prosecute you and send you to jail? How would they do that when you would be a vapor in the wind, just like you made me?

I see, you want me to give up my right to be secure by excercising your rights.

Ah, now I have got it, you don't care about your fellow man and what would surely affect others and not just yourself. Scary, thats real scary, and exactly why I feel you don't "need" one.

Got it? It isn't that hard to see how some may want to question your having one.

Brownie

pax

June 28, 2003, 03:37 PM

Brownie,

Please go back and read my first two posts on this thread.

If you're going to tear into me as if you think I'm an idiot, at least attack the right things.

pax

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

brownie0486

June 28, 2003, 03:39 PM

Pax,
I wasn't referring to you directly but all those who have posted it is there right to have one and how dare anyone question there right.

And there are many here who have taken that side.

As to your first two posts which I agree with in theory, the land necessary to own in that scenario would be half the globe. Radioactive material would travel that far. If the neighbor were under that guideline to have one [ which makes sense ], this discussion is futile unless others still feel it is there right to be able to own one.

Brownie

bjengs

June 28, 2003, 04:11 PM

Enough about the nukes, already! I think the more curious issue is how many people believe an individual should not be as well armed as our standing armies.

Brownie, you've got a solid perspective, I'd like to hear where you voted.

brownie0486

June 28, 2003, 04:20 PM

bjengs: I voted
"Individuals should be able to own small arms, with NO registration."

Small arms up to and including mg's. No artie, etc.

Was an FDC/FO in the corps for 05 toweds in 70. Lots of destruction with these and the one who would own it would need to have the ability to range it not just load and shoot it.

Brownie

mercedesrules

June 28, 2003, 04:39 PM

(Brownie0486
Where does it say anywhere I need to trust you or can't question your responsibility with a WMD item, when if you have an ND with one we all die within a 20 mile readius?

Isn't that a right I have somewhere in the bill of rights?

Am I not to be secure in my liberty? Somehow I wouldn't feel secure, nor could you convince me I'm secure if you had one.

I can't find the part of the constitution that guarantees a right to feel a certain way.

MR

brownie0486

June 28, 2003, 04:50 PM

Call it a feeling and a fact that I wouldn't be secure in my person with you having one in your posession.

I do have the right to be secure, but would I really be secure if someone owned one privately next door, down the road, next town, next state, next country?

Seems like my rights might be trampled while you are excercising yours there so the question comes back to those who would feel they have the right to own one, which was,

"Am I not to be secure in my liberty? Somehow I wouldn't feel secure, nor could you convince me I'm secure if you had one. If you did have an ND excercising
your rights you would not be taking mine [ liberty ] away by doing so?"

Someone who feels they have the right to own one please tell me how you do so and not violate my own rights in doing so.

Oh ya, almost forgot, didn't the framers of the constitution write it with their feelings based on facts? They felt the 2a was necessary and wrote it. Seems a lot of feeling went into that document. They wrote the document based on their feelings, seems you gotta get by those feelings of others before you can own one.

Brownie

Tamara

June 28, 2003, 06:08 PM

Call it a feeling and a fact that I wouldn't be secure in my person with you having one in your posession.

You may not feel secure in your person with your neighbour having a .38; does that give you the right to take it away from him?

I must have missed where "the right to feel secure in your person" falls into the natural rights this nation is founded upon.

I don't feel secure in my person with 99.99% of the cell-phone-yapping, child-smacking, SUV-piloting nimrods on the road today, yet somehow I find the strength to muddle through. Shall I lend you some of my inner reserves of fortitude? ;)

brownie0486

June 28, 2003, 06:21 PM

If discharging the .38 would kill everyone in a 20 mile radius, yes.

If the mishandling of SUV's could kill everyone in a 20 mile radius I think they would never have been allowed on the road.

Brownie

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 06:41 PM

'Scuse me, but the Constitution was written before nuclear weapons. Biological weapons in the hands of private American citizens have a real history of personal responsibility regarding their use, what with smallpox-infected blankets being passed out to them dadgum heathen injuns and all. :rolleyes: The first time a private citizen starts building a nuclear weapon were it allowed, that's the very instant his smart neighbors shoot that idiot. Really, what a bunch of whining! "I can't own a nuclear weapon, my rights are being infringed, waaaaa, waaaaa, waaaa! And if the rest of you don't agree, you're all fascist jackboots!" This is getting so redundantly old, it's pathetic.

Those of you who believe in private ownership of nuclear weapons, do the rest of us a huge favor. Refrain from speaking to the public about RKBA. We'd rather not be known as "all gun nuts think they should have nukes!" You guys make a great case for responsible ownership of small arms. I'm sure you persuade lots of fence-sitters with your argument.:rolleyes:

mercedesrules

June 28, 2003, 06:57 PM

(Sir Galahad)'Scuse me, but the Constitution was written before nuclear weapons.
Careful, SG, the constitution was written before the invention of every gun I own.

MR

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 07:18 PM

Careful, mercedes, you're wrong. The principle behind firearms remains the same regardless. Not so with nuclear weapons. That is entirely a 20th century construct. Regardless of how you want to MISINTERPRET the 2nd Amendment, it does not guaruntee you the right to own a nuclear weapon. You're just as wrong as people who think it pertains only to National Guard. You go and say things like "we should be allowed to own nuclear weapons" and then you wonder why people start believing in gun control.

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 07:25 PM

Further, the Constitution cannot really guarantee you the "right" to own something that in both concept and design did not exist at the time of its writing. Firearms existed already and their evolution into repeaters is still a firearm. Not so with nuclear weapons. In the case of things such as how the 1st Amendment relates to modern inventions such as the internet, the idea of communication of ideas remains the same. With nuclear weapons, the concept is destruction of entire cities and the 2nd was not formed to entrench that as a "right" of an individual. But, as I said, please do not speak for RKBA to the fence-sitters. We already have enough gun control laws and they don't need more ammo to paint us all as dangerous lunatics, dangerous to all in society.

Edward429451

June 28, 2003, 07:30 PM

I voted everything including artillary. But I think I've been swayed during the back & forth of this issue to include nukes.

I see excellant points on both sides of the issue. If my neighbor across the street has a nuke in his garage, I think I'm within my right to stroll over and ask if he keeps the safety on on that thing. If he AD's with it, (totally reasonable concern b/c humans are known to make mistakes...) it takes everyone out within a 20 mi radius. Thats cause for debate no matter how they wrote the Constitution, get real.

OTOH, The Constitutionalists, of which I side, are correct. The law is the law, the truth is the truth and is technically and literally immuteable. Shall not be infringed. What part is confusing? Truth doesn't change. We the people, the power, the authority. Where's the confusion?

Sounds like a stalemate. What're we missing here?

I'll tell you what we're missing. An efficient government. By the people, for the people, of the people. We do not have this, we have an iron fist. So they didn't have nukes when the Constitution was written. So what. The government for the people should've grown with technology and the needs of the people, and provided us with a nuclear storage/testing facility for those people who owned nukes. Sort of a DCM on steroids. If you want a weapon of this magnitude at home, well you gotta meet building code (Yes, sacrifice a little liberty consumant with the danger of your AD should you have one) If you have enough property to contain the danger to others, (20 sq miles? 50?), inspection is made and certificate of nuke facility issued. All other nuke owners please store your WMD at the proper facility.

Instead, what do we get / got? "you cant have a flash supressor, you cant have a 15 round mag. :rolleyes: We need a new government. Amicable resolutions can be reached but, we need a new government.

Lets Roll...!:rolleyes: :D :D Good debate nonetheless.

Edward429451

June 28, 2003, 07:42 PM

Here's a thought, Gunnies...:D

Does the Constitution negate rule #2?
(Never let the muzzle cover anything that you're not willing to destroy.)

Or

Does Rule #2 negate the Constitution?

HarHarHar!!!:D :D

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 08:02 PM

Why don't you rugged indivdualists ask the survivng downwinders in St. George, Kanab, and Cedar City, Utah how they feel on atmospheric nuclear tests? :rolleyes: DCM on steroids.:rolleyes: The Constitution technically doesn't forbid child pornography, either. Care to defend THAT on a 1st Amendment basis, anyone?

Edward429451

June 28, 2003, 08:40 PM

[QUOTE]DCM on steroids.:rolleyes:

Aw just tryin to lighten it up a little. It was funny

We cant have nukes anyway, so no need to get upset.:)

Tamara

June 28, 2003, 09:40 PM

Do you not feel dismayed that one side can only support their argument with ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum logical fallacies while the other calls on the letter of the Constitution and logic?

Further, the Constitution cannot really guarantee you the "right"

Perhaps you should read the Constitution sometime.

Here is Article One, Section Eight (a list of what Congress may do):
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Show me in that list where Congress may outlaw possession of tactical nukes (or anything else, for that matter), and we might be able to have an adult discussion, else you'll have to return to mud-slinging like "MISINTERPRET", "guaruntee[sic]", "bunch of whining!", "pathetic", and et cetera...

El Tejon

June 28, 2003, 09:58 PM

The Constitution does not guarantee any "rights"???:confused: Why did little Jimmy write them down to begin with?

Tamara, I know, I know, it's our friend the Commerce Clause couple with its inherent health, safety, and po-po powers. It's because the uranium, the metal, and the spanners and screws all walked, or could some day potentially, walk across state lines.

When I took Adv. Fed. Crim. Law in grad skul, we used to joke that Congress would soon federalize all crime as perpetrators could potentially use their imported shoes to walk across imaginary lines.:D

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 10:01 PM

I apologize, Tamara. I forgot ad hominem attacks are only proper when you're making them.

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 10:04 PM

So, Tamara, then there's nothing wrong with kids, say, under 12 being used in pornography, right? Constitution doesn't forbid it. First Amendment! Right to free speech!

Tamara

June 28, 2003, 10:09 PM

I apologize

As well you should. Apology accepted.

I forgot ad hominem attacks are only proper when you're making them.

A link?

Heck, I'll accept an unattributed quote.

Let's not be tossing baseless accusations around; I provided cites for mine...

Marko Kloos

June 28, 2003, 10:10 PM

I apologize, Tamara. I forgot ad hominem attacks are only proper when you're making them.

Cheap shot.

I challenge you to go through the collected archives of both THR and TFL and find just one post where Tamara attacked the arguer and not the argument.

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 10:15 PM

Just read over some of your posts in this thread.
"...else we might have to have an ADULT discussion..."

Plus your little barb about "reading the Constitution. BUT---To you, "misinterpret" is an ad hominem attack. So, YOU can tell me I ought to read the Constitution (insinuating I don't know it or MISINTERPRET it) and that's not an as hominem attack. But if I say "misinterpret", it is an ad hominem attack. It's all in the wording, ma'am.

Tamara

June 28, 2003, 10:20 PM

I simply reckoned that, since there was no Constitutional authority in Article One, Section Eight, for Congress to ban ownership of anything, that folks may not be familiar with it.

As far as "adult" discussion goes, I'm not the one hurling invective at my opponents in this debate. All I'm doing is citing the, you know, founding document of our country.

Let him without sin, and such...

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 10:23 PM

Whatever. Now, your stand on child pornography?

Chris Rhines

June 28, 2003, 10:30 PM

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 10:45 PM

And does the First Amendment protect child pornography? How come no one wants to touch that one? Hmmm??

Marko Kloos

June 28, 2003, 10:49 PM

Because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and because your motivation is patently obvious. You're losing the discussion on the Second Amendment, so now you throw out the child porn issue for the sole purpose of goading your debate opponents into statements that enable you to go: "Hah! Child porn supporters! Moral high ground for me!"

Return to the debate at hand, and keep it there.

Chris Rhines

June 28, 2003, 10:51 PM

Probably because it has been done to death. The whole kiddie porn argument is the Freedom of Expression equivalent of "shall-issue CCW will cause blood to run in the streets."

Re-read my last post; you'll pick it up.

- Chris

Sir Galahad

June 28, 2003, 11:08 PM

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion at hand, len. If you're going to be an absolutist on the Const., then that applies to ALL the Amendments. You can't be a little bit pregant, as you're all claiming. So you then must support child pornography in order to hold true to an absolute definition of the 1st Amendment. My point is: If you believe in this absolutism, then it ust apply to other things besides the 2nd Amendment. If you don't care to answer it, Len, then don't. But don't tell me how to structure my posts. Why not just answer the question and see where it leads? Or are you afraid to for fear people will see something you wish them not to regarding your ideology?

Ian

June 29, 2003, 12:11 AM

I second what Lendringser said. The Feds have no authority to ban child pornography, bad as it may be. The Feds don't have the authority to prosecute murder, much less porn.

Further, the Constitution cannot really guarantee you the "right" to own something that in both concept and design did not exist at the time of its writing. Firearms existed already and their evolution into repeaters is still a firearm. Not so with nuclear weapons. In the case of things such as how the 1st Amendment relates to modern inventions such as the internet, the idea of communication of ideas remains the same. With nuclear weapons, the concept is destruction of entire cities and the 2nd was not formed to entrench that as a "right" of an individual.

Ooo, that's too good to pass up. :) If the 'idea' of the internet is 'communication', then certainly the 'idea' of nukes is simply 'blowing things up'. You didn't get at all specific with the 'net, so you can't do it to nukes. Since bombs (to 'blow stuff up') have been around since well before the Constitution was written, your argument collapses.

Byron Quick

June 29, 2003, 12:35 AM

Personally,

My litmus test runs thus: If I don't think the doofus who lives across the street from me should own a particular item, then I certainly would not trust a government to own such.

Compare murders by governments throughout history with the private party murders throughout history. Government murders are at least an order of magnitude higher.

Look around you.

Sir Galahad

June 29, 2003, 01:14 AM

So, private citizens should be able to own nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Child pornography should be legal. Glad to say I'm not on your side and glad to say I DO know what side I am on. Glad to say I know right from wrong and milk from poison. If that makes me a jackboot in the eyes of some, I'm proud to claim that title. Makes no difference, really, because the concepts you all believe in are never going to happen, and thankfully so. And you'll never make them happen, either. So, have a good evening and we all know where we stand. Feel free to apply whatever label you think best describes me and I'll do my best to look offended. :D

mattd

June 29, 2003, 01:28 AM

Further, the Constitution cannot really guarantee you the "right" to own something that in both concept and design did not exist at the time of its writing. Firearms existed already and their evolution into repeaters is still a firearm. Not so with nuclear weapons. In the case of things such as how the 1st Amendment relates to modern inventions such as the internet, the idea of communication of ideas remains the same.

That means only muzzle loaders, smallpox, and hand presses are protected, not the internet and not bolt action rifles. Sorry but you can't argue this with any rhetoric. You are cherry picking the Bill of Rights.

Call it a feeling and a fact that I wouldn't be secure in my person with you having one in your posession. :barf:

Tamara

June 29, 2003, 01:29 AM

Still waitin' on that Constitutional cite, bro.

Looks like all you've got so far is "Well, you're a poopy-head! So there!"

I haven't called you a name yet, why must you call me one? Is that all the argument you have? :confused:

Edward429451

June 29, 2003, 02:22 AM

If someone here can explain to me how my ownership of any object represents an act of aggression against another person, then I'll consider advocating a priori restrictions on the ownership of said object.

I'll take a stab at this Chris...

Ok I'm using my absolute right to sit on my porch and handle my gun and I'm doing some sight picture practice on you mowing your grass across the street. Now my safety is on, and I usually dont violate rule #3 anyway, so your probably alright. Do I have the right to do this? Of course not because accidents happen and you might get hurt if I AD. Even inadvertant agression is a violation of the non agression principle (NAP). So my absolute right to my (object) gun ends where it would put you in danger. If I went into my garage with my object/gun and pointed it at the floor for my sight pic practice, No NAP is violated so I would have my absolute right to my object intact. Still with me?

Now tell me how I could go in my garage and point my nuke towards the floor and not endanger you if I AD'd with it. Thats what pax was talking about early on. Its like having a gun pointed at you. Noone can claim a right which would endanger someone else if an accident occured, so you cant have a nuke at home.

So rule#2 negates the constitution in that aspect because of the magnitude of potential desruction from a nuke. Otherwise we'd be saying that rule #2 doesn't exist, that its legal to sweep people with your muzzle.

:scrutiny:

Tamara

June 29, 2003, 02:27 AM

While I'm a big believer in Rule #2, I'm not necessarily sure it should be construed as Law #2. :uhoh:

tyme

June 29, 2003, 02:28 AM

SG, before you start screaming "the heathens are coming" (to the extent you haven't already), perhaps you'd like to elaborate on exactly what you mean by child porn? Where exactly is the moral high ground? Is it a total ban on nude images of "children" under 18 (there are some who would take a page from the Bradys and call it at 21 or 23 instead)? You used the tender age of 12 to further your argument, but I'm interested in where the high ground is, not where your argument is. Or, perhaps, is the high ground a ban on the creation of child porn, with no laws against its viewing? I think there are many who would agree that communities could make laws against creation of child porn, at least under some age limit that would be easier for you to stomach than the ultra-tender age of 0 (or even -0.75).

What is child porn and what problem(s) does it create?

only1asterisk

June 29, 2003, 02:40 AM

Ed,

Every morning when I frive to work, an accident might happen. Neither I, nor other sane drivers want this to happen. When I get on the road, it is understood that everyone on the road will try not to endanger each other.
We all know what happens, and people die every day. Some people make very good owners of CBN weapons, others don't. Some people can't drive worth $#!+. I'm thinking if we all had .5 MT warhead, we would be very concerned with each others education, mental health, and emotional state.
We would treat people with much more respect and be a far more polite society. If you aren't fit to keep a nuke, you have a problem the rest of need to help you with.

By the way, most warheads are constructed to be complex to arm and detonate, much less likely to AD. I'd be more worried about some disturbed person commiting suicide with one than anything else.

David

Edward429451

June 29, 2003, 01:29 PM

While I'm a big believer in Rule #2, I'm not necessarily sure it should be construed as Law #2.

This is a sticky one.

So if your across the street and I'm sweeping you with my muzzle, you can ask me to be nice about it, but there's no moral obligation (or law) for me to comply with your wishes? Couldn't that be construed as a violation of the NAP and justify you to take action to protect yourself?

Even the big bad government makes mistakes and has accidents. One of their accidents of an atmospheric test knocked out electronics, lights and communications over several nations, from the EMP. Also a nuke doesn't have to explode to kill people, it can leak radiation and still get you.

Oleg Volk

June 29, 2003, 04:11 PM

On child porn: it ought to be legal and IS, except where actual children were used to create it. To clarify, CGI or hand-draw or sculpted child porn is legal.

The rights of minors are what makes photo child porn illegal. Currently, US legal doctrine is that parents do not fully determine what does or doesn't violate their children's rights. Even then, this is a very sticky issue: is a bathtub picture of a 2yo porn? of a 5yo? 13yo? 19yo? We can play mental gymnastics with the specifics, but the issue remains that the defining factor in the legality or lack thereof for child porn is the rights of the minors (and who determines them, what "porn" is, etc.)

MicroBalrog

June 29, 2003, 04:40 PM

In actual fact, at least one artwork which mentions 14-yo's having sex is part of the school programme of schools all over the world.

Safety First

June 29, 2003, 09:43 PM

My view is fairly simplicstic regarding the right to bear arms.. I can't say what was in the mind of the Constitutions framers. But in todays world,what is of paramount importance is that all Americans have the right to carry a weapon for the sole purpose of ' self defenese' and in my opinion it should not have to be registered..but on the other hand I dont have a great big problem with registering my firearm and obtaining a permit to CCW...the main thing to me is the Government does not interfere in my right to protect myself and family. In Georgia I feel the carry laws are at least reasonable for the most part, I do however have a problem with not being able to carry into a restaurant just because it serves alcohol, (not carrying into a bar is just common sense) a Post office, etc..
Again, I don't pretend to have all the answers,but Americans should be free to defend themselves and any of the flaming liberals who think otherwise most likely have not yet suffered a violent attack or me thinks they would change their tune,at least that's what me thinks anyway...

mattd

June 30, 2003, 02:48 AM

Register a gun? Do you think criminals are going to register their guns? They only want you to register a gun so they know what houses to stop at.

bjengs

June 30, 2003, 02:51 AM

How would George Washington and the other Revolutionary War heroes have fared if they didn't have cannon?

mattd

June 30, 2003, 02:52 AM

Same place, in the ground.

Ed Brunner

June 30, 2003, 04:49 PM

The Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed. The founding fathers knew grammar and used the word shall instead of will for a specific purpose. I don't know that they still teach grammar, but the use of shall in the third person denotes much more than simple futurity which is why I will accept no infringement.

Edward429451

June 30, 2003, 04:55 PM

While I'm a big believer in Rule #2, I'm not necessarily sure it should be construed as Law #2.

Tamara, I been thinking about this and I wonder...

If I fall back on the Constitution in this particular situation 'as the supreme law of the land' would I be being hypocritical?

I get on here and rant that the po po is too much by the book, no discretion or consideration, just 'The letter of the law, boy' and such and if I did this without the consideration that my nuke could leak radioactive material or explode, dangering my neighbors, I may just be doing what I accuse the po po of doing.:(

I dont want to be that guy. A little consideration of the neighbors would be in order I think, on this one. (But don't ask me to move my cannon, its unloaded and "leakproof");)

Comments?

Edward429451

June 30, 2003, 04:58 PM

Would an armed submarine be considered a projectile weapon? (WWII vintage, no nukes)

I want a sub.:D

bjengs

July 1, 2003, 01:09 AM

Ed Brunner,

You wrote that the poll has too few choices. (I agree, and I authored it!) What's your exact take? And I'd love to hear more about "shall" and "will," something I was going to bring up elsewhere but figured no one would be interested.

Ed Brunner

July 1, 2003, 08:12 AM

I am a dinosaur on a lot of issues, but particularly this one. I mentioned that they don't teach grammar today as a comment on current education, another of my issues. Kids learn a lot of things in schools today, but are light on the basics.
On the subject of infringement, I entertain none. I am against CCW permits because I resent having to pay the government in order to exercise a right that it guarantees me.
On the question of shall and will, their use varies as to the person of the subject of the sentence. If the subject is first person as in I or we, the use of shall indicates simple futurity whereas will indicates determination. They are used conversely in the second and third persons.
In the legal sense, the use of shall in the third person indicates an absolute requirement.
There is no question of what the Second Amendment requires of the government.
Maybe that is why things like grammar and civics are missing from today's cirricula.

MicroBalrog

July 1, 2003, 02:48 PM

Did anybody notice there's one (1) person on this forum who voted for a total ban?

bjengs

July 1, 2003, 07:49 PM

On the subject of infringement, I entertain none. I am against CCW permits because I resent having to pay the government in order to exercise a right that it guarantees me. Ed rules.

bjengs

July 3, 2003, 03:20 PM

Some of you have the nerve to complain about the Supreme Court...unbelievable.

54% of the folks who voted in this poll believe that their rights precede any form of man-made governance.

Half.

The 43% or so who voted "small arms only" vote that way because the Constitution says "keep and bear" and of course you can't carry around a cannon. Boy, it's a good thing no one ever repealed the 2nd amendment, because what then? "Let your chains set lightly upon you," as a great man once suggested?

No wonder so many people are breathless with hand-wringing anticipation over what the "danged liberal 9th Circuit Court" or "SCOTUS" is "gonna do next to our rights."

Well, folks, if you don't believe that you have rights absolutely, in precedence over any government's say-so, then I suggest you take a moment to think about what it is to truly be free.

mattd

July 3, 2003, 03:43 PM

54% of the folks who voted in this poll believe that their rights precede any form of man-made governance.

Don't you mean 29%?

pax

July 3, 2003, 04:28 PM

54% of the folks who voted in this poll believe that their rights precede any form of man-made governance.

Half.
bjengs,

Discouraging?

I don't think so. I'm amazed that it's as high as it is.

If you'd asked me, at a guess I'd have put the number down around 5 to 10%, even on this board. Pro-freedom types are a vocal minority, to be sure, but still a small minority.

It's not as if this were a new thing, either. The Founders had only about 1/3 of the populace behind their radical ideas -- and of that third, it would be surprising if many were on board not because they valued freedom itself, but for other reasons.

Not new, not surprising. Discouraging only if you were expecting something different than history tells you is true about human nature.

pax

Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust (Roman historian - c. 40 BC).

Oleg Volk

July 3, 2003, 05:21 PM

I think he was saying that the many people who believe in no restrictions aren't doing enough to fight the current de-facto restrictions.

bjengs

July 5, 2003, 03:11 PM

Close enough, Oleg. Although a lot of people on this board confuse "voting" with "doing something."

BTW, a-human-right.com is the coolest pro-gun site I have ever seen. Actually, it's the best advocacy site I've seen of any sort.

Combat-wombat

July 5, 2003, 03:28 PM

Who voted for the first option?

MicroBalrog

July 5, 2003, 03:30 PM

I've asked that before. He probably hit the wrong button and is nowy hiding out in embarassment.:D

Glamdring

July 5, 2003, 04:06 PM

I am waiting to see how our expansion into space effects perception about privately owned weapon platforms that can take out cities.

Perhaps media and public in general lacks enough of an understanding of physics to realize how much damage a space ship with no "weapons" can do to a planet at the bottom of gravity well?

The way it is going in will be private companies or non "world powers" that develope spaceflight. Of course once you have effective space flight IMHO you are a world power.

tcdrennen

July 5, 2003, 04:45 PM

any individual should be able to own and use any weapon remotely usable for the DEFENSE of him/her self, family, and community. I would expect that crew served weapons would be owned by groups (formal or informal) of people. In fact, it was the cannon, shot and powder in the village arsenals of Concord and Lexington that the British troops were sent after in April 1775; seizing PERSONAL arms was beyond even THEIR wildest idea. What was on the minds of the Framers and the people who insisted on the fundamental, inalienable RKBA floowed suit; the April 1775 incidents were exactly what they were trying to prevent ever even being considered.

WMDs, OTOH, are OFFENSIVE and indiscriminate in nature. Whatever discussion of deterrence one may make notwithstanding, I do reserve their ready possession and use to duly constituted, reprsentative government at a national level. If you accidently blow someone's house or car up with your crew served private weapons, you should be hanged: YOU are now the premier threat to your neighbors :uhoh: . With WMDs, if you screw up or make a mistake, their would be no neighbors left to hang you :what: :scrutiny: ; I'll let common sense and prudence allow for WMD restriction.

Glamdring

July 5, 2003, 05:05 PM

Ban "WMD"? I think all the arguements against banning guns, books, etc apply to banning anything.

Anyone ever notice how industrial chemicals (some of which have been used as WMD) do get "spilled" in our country by accident? I know of at least two occasions here in MN where Chlorine in large amounts was released from train cars when train derailed.

Nukes scare some people, just like guns scare some people. So does Anthrax, and we learned after 9/11 that there is an individual here in the US that is capable of weaponizing & using Anthrax. Banning the use of WMD isn't going to stop their production or use.

WMD are a big force multiplier, so smaller and weaker nations/groups/indiviuals will become more and more interested in them as manufacturing them gets easier & cheaper with the march of technology.

Making chemical weapons requires (maybe) a High School education. Biological weapons (maybe) an undergrad education. Nuclear weapons requires a (maybe) graduate level education.

I can understand why some people might be frightened by this. When I was younger and dumber I was greatly worried for some time that the Soviet Union could have emplaced nukes in cities around our country. Later I learned how poor and starved for resources they were and how the cold war was pravada from our Government (just like Al Quadais now).

But I don't understand why people think banning something (ANYTHING) accomplishes anything useful? :confused: Since people willing to follow laws are not going to be a problem in the first place.

4v50 Gary

July 5, 2003, 05:38 PM

I voted only for small arms w/out restrictions.

Historically the biggest gun during the time of the Constitution were cannons and yes, they could be owned by individuals (predominantly shipowners). On land though, most cannons were kept in arsenals and as to ownership, I've never done research beyond ships. However, in California we don't even have to look to our founding fathers time to see private ownership of cannons. John Sutter of Sutter's Fort fame (Mr. send his workmen out to unintentionally find gold and start a gold rush) use to buy every cannon he could get his hands on. He had all sizes of cannons at his fort and it was a prestige thing to him to have a lot of artillery.

So why not cannons? I can see communities owning them or even ships having them (good way to keep pirates at bay even today) but I can't see levelling a city block just because the neighbor's dog dumped on your lawn. Guess I'm a control freak.

mercedesrules

July 5, 2003, 06:27 PM

(4v50 Gary) I voted only for small arms w/out restrictions.
Fascist!

MR

Ed Brunner

July 5, 2003, 06:39 PM

Call me fascist but...
I voted only for small arms w/out restrictions.

There is probably a good reason why the founding fathers did not enumerate permitted or forbidden arms. Inasmuch as they were thinking defense for the people, the required arm would be whatever it takes. And since they were considering a government as the most likely oppressor, it would be ludricous to suggest that a government could restrict the peoples' choice of arms.
Which is exactly the situation we face today.

bjengs

July 5, 2003, 11:49 PM

Ed said...whatever it takes SING IT, ED!

bjengs

July 5, 2003, 11:54 PM

I'll let common sense and prudence allow for WMD restriction. Common sense and prudence, to most, suggests that no firearms at all would be the best idea.

If you are banning things for their potential threat, you have two problems. First, the hypocrisy, wherein a trained rifleman with an M14 is, himself, a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Similarly, it is conceivable that a madman could steal from house to house during the night, and cut the throats of all of his neighbors. With a knife. Whatcha gonna ban then?

Second, you're banning it and asking whom to do the policing on these bans? You're worried about a bunch of nuts with advanced weapons, how do you suggest the police should "control" them? With revolvers?

4v50 Gary

July 6, 2003, 12:58 PM

Mercedesrules - them's fighting words! I'm gonna tell Tamara on you. :neener:

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 01:19 PM

bjengs states:
"wherein a trained rifleman with an M14 is, himself, a Weapon of Mass Destruction"

Really? I thought the rifle killed one at a time whereas a WMD killed many all at once. Where is the thought process which brought forth that correlation?

and again you state "it is conceivable that a madman could steal from house to house during the night, and cut the throats of all of his neighbors. With a knife."

House to house would be the way to kill your neighbors in the night as you suggest, thats a far cry from a WMD which will kill many all at once isn't it?

Have an ND with a WMD and everyone within a certain radius goes with you. Having an ND with a knife or rifle won't kill millions would they?

See the difference now? Both of your examples do not put millions at risk of death immediately or consequently after the fact but the WMD will certainly do that won't it?

No difference you say?

Brownie

mercedesrules

July 6, 2003, 01:32 PM

Mercedesrules - them's fighting words! I'm gonna tell Tamara on you.

It was a setup!:uhoh:

Call me fascist...

Well, it won't work; Tamara and I have adjoining padded rooms at the crazy (libertarian/anarchist) house. :)

MR

cordex

July 6, 2003, 01:52 PM

brownie
Really? I thought the rifle killed one at a time whereas a WMD killed many all at once. Where is the thought process which brought forth that correlation?
WMD is a term without a concrete definition.
You are using it as a "kill many all at once" (i.e. a bad car accident) as opposed to "one at a time" (like the anthrax attacks tended to) whereas another person might define it only as radiological, chemical or biological weapons, but allow that fifteen thousand tonnes of high-explosive is not.

Since there is such disparity in the term's definition, it doesn't take a big imagination to redefine Weapon of Mass Destruction to an M14 and a good rifleman.
Have an ND with a WMD and everyone within a certain radius goes with you. Having an ND with a knife or rifle won't kill millions would they?
Well thank goodness a ND with a gov't owned WMD doesn't hurt anyone. *whew* I was worried for a second there.

Gary,
I can't see levelling a city block just because the neighbor's dog dumped on your lawn.
Someone willing to level a city block because of dog feces is even more likely to be willing to gun down their neighbor and passing pedestrians with small arms for the same reason. Since the "blood will flow in the streets" argument applies to small arms too, why allow 'em? Ban 'em all!

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 02:03 PM

I was under the impression that WMD meant "weapons of mass destruction" as in immediate "mass destruction" of life and property. The m14 [ which I own several of since my Marine days, is not so inclined to kill thousands immediately.] When I touch one off on the 14, everyone gets a chance to hear it and leave the immediate area. I may get several before they take cover however I don't consider it "mass destruction" on the same scale and it certainly doesn't have the immediacy of the nuke.

Doesn't mass destruction suggest large destruction? And in the context of people and buildings being erradicated in a blink of an eye?

Govt's keep them secured and have set in place regulations for their use and getting them operational which isn't immediate. Many have to be involved in the execution of the firing sequences and codes to get them to go. A neighbor would have all these same safeguards? I doubt it.

While the govt has them I don't worry about one going off next door anytime soon. I can't say that if the neighbor has one.

Brownie

Orthonym

July 6, 2003, 02:22 PM

Don't the Feds define an ordinary hand grenade as a WMD these days? Not mad atcha, I caught your point in another thread re the good things (you must admit, more technological than social) about Mass. In fact, I think I'll put on a Sousa disc and play "The Glory of the Yankee Navy" just for you! ("Semper Fidelis" is on there too:D ) BTW, I voted for nukes and nerve gas.

Ed Brunner

July 6, 2003, 05:52 PM

You are straining at a gnat in your zeal to define WMD's under the assumption that they might be prohibited under 2A

They are not, but the exercise is entertaining.

4v50 Gary

July 6, 2003, 05:59 PM

WMD to me is something like bio-chem warfare (feces from dog catapulted onto your neighbor's porch doesn't count). Small arms are definitely out despite what Fineswine says. However, a B-52 loaded with 2,000 lbs bomb is something to look at in askance. Same with buying the Iowa from the US Navy. So what if Turret #2 is out? You still got two other turrets. That's a little overkill for an individual. OK for a community to own though (ala Tale of Two Cities ;) ). I really don't see anything wrong with owing a Panther tank or a T-72. But does anybody want the kid next door to have their own pocket neutron bomb? He gets picked on one day and the bully is gone along with the school.

feedthehogs

July 6, 2003, 07:16 PM

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of "shall not be infringed", is not understood?

Adding the part about nukes and gas is mute.

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 07:44 PM

If we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms, everyone would be walking around with long sleeve shirts and no arms to put them in. You would have to wear liong sleeves if you couldn't bear the arms.

"What part of "shall not be infringed", is not understood?"
Ahh, but you see, they have been infinged, haven't they and for good reason sir. People like you may just want to exercise some percieved right to set one off one day for the hell of it and too hell with anybody else's safety within a 30 mile radius. Think you have the right to do that do you? Guess again.

Would make a hell of a great way to off yourself [ WMD ] instead of slashing your wrists and waiting to bleed out on the floor though huh?

I think we saw an American tryng to off some of us on a plane using a bomb in the shoe like "get smart" didn't we? Whats to prevent one of these folks from exercising his right to WMD ownership under the guise of the 2nd and then taking millions with him. Oh, I forgot, it's his right to do these things. Anyone want to guess how long it would be before some nut case got one legally and set it off for the fourth of July celebration?

I guess he should be allowed that, right? Where you people come up with the logic of civilians owning them is beyond me. And lets be perfectly clear about something here.

If you had one next door to me, they would never find your body. It's called a preemptive strike, and of course, I'm exercising my god given rights at that time as well.

I'd be the one with the knife going door to door at night slitting the throats of those who had them personally tucked under their bed. Hope we are on the same page now. See, it's like this for you folks stating it's your right to have one.
You are then a threat to me and mine, consequently I'm thinking preemtively where you are concerned.

You have your rights, and I have mine. Thank god I don't have to worry about people actually getting these into private hands legally in numbers. I gave preemptiveness up a long time ago and would not cherish the idea of reinstituting something that worked so well when we were threatened. It's the only way to live when threatened thusly.

Brownie

Ian

July 6, 2003, 07:56 PM

Your nutcases seem to be MIA, brownie. All these people who apparently would be out nerve gassing people over dog doo and nuking cities on the 4th of July ought to be shooting up stadiums or detonating subways or something, shouldn't they? Or are they just going to be normal, well-adjusted people until they have anthrax in their grubby little hands?

If you're really so terrified of your neighbors, you ought to go live in the middle of Alaska or New Mexico or the like. It's a much more humanitarian solution than running around telling people what they can and can't do.

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 08:12 PM

Ian:

Don't read the news much? Every day in the US there are nuts out there causing mayhem either intentionally or by shear stupidity. May not be a stadium, but how about that McDonalds in S Cal, or Ruby's in texas, or a hundred others I can't recall just now but could certainly crash this server listing them in the last ten years alone if I felt like researching it.

I'm not terrified of the neighbors, did I say that, or are you sticking your words in their somehere and attributing them to me? They don't have nuke capability, or else I would be nervous living next to them. Thats right, lets look at it from the opposite side. Your stance is that you wouldn't be nervous of the nuke next door? How about a reality check there. If a nuke in the neighbors basement doesn't distrub you, my guess is you have ice water running through your veins.

Humanitarian? Living in NM or Alaska solves the problem of the neighbors with nukes? How so, they would be present there as well me thinks. Lets see, you are suggesting I move my family and uproot myself and my way of life so you can enjoy your new toy? Don't think so.

What could be more humanitarian than killing millions with an ND though huh? Running aroud telling others what they can and can't do? Where do you get that thought from? You can own all the nukes you want. I'll be by one night real soon though. I have a rsponsibility to my family first, threaten them with a possible nuke explosion and we have a problem.

Where would the humanitarianism be when one went off accidently, let alone on purpose. Next thing you know, they are watching tv and nuking the BG on screen until some numb nut gets carried away and lights it off by mistake like some here do with firearms.

The state motto where I grew up was "don't tread on me". If you have a nuke in the garage you are treading on me to my thinking. Damned the reasonableness or prudence, it's my RIGHT. Think again.

Brownie

Ed Brunner

July 6, 2003, 09:03 PM

The nuke in the garage is like a figment of the imagination. Anyone who really worries about that would be much better off worrying about the forty million real people or things which are more likely to do harm.
To make WMD's an Anti 2A argument is to admit that you have no argument.

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 09:10 PM

Ed:
Obviously none will own one personally in our lifetime. Thank Christ!!!!!

There are just too many people out there that believe in absolutes and to hell with reasoning and prudence. There are no absolutes in life are there? Seems a few here have voiced with reasoning to those who shout they should be able to own one.

It's not a 2a repose, but common sense. It's the 2a proponents who want one.

Brownie

Ed Brunner

July 6, 2003, 09:17 PM

Ed:Obviously none will own one personally in our lifetime. Thank Christ!!!!!

What makes you think so? With all of the Russian suitcases that are missing it is quite likely that it is a real threat.

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 09:36 PM

That was in context of this thread and the 2a's who would have own/one.

Ya, we are in for a real hard time I think, many of those are among the missing.

"quite likely that it is a real threat." The 2a proponents don't seem to think so. They want one and don't feel it's a threat or any of my business if they have one.

Ya, a real threat, thats what I've been saying here.

Brownie

Glamdring

July 6, 2003, 09:52 PM

brownie0486: The state motto where I grew up was "don't tread on me". If you have a nuke in the garage you are treading on me to my thinking. Damned the reasonableness or prudence, it's my RIGHT. Think again.

"If you have a _____ in the garage you are treading on me to my thinking."

So how many things are others not supposed to have in their garage because it scares, offends, or disturbes you? Would you say only things that are dangerous?

If they have books on making WMD is that just as bad? If they have religious items from religions you are worried about should that be banned also?

How do you feel about the farmers that have pesticides in their garages/sheds? You do know that many nerve and chemical agents are just pesticides? That a WMD factory can be making pesticides for agriculture use.

Biological weapons are often just concentrated natural organisms with a special package (small pox, anthrax, etc).

WMD is a term like "assault weapons" what it means depends on the person using it. But generally it is used to refer to weapons you don't want other people to have.

Is a FAE (fuel air explosive; if you ever see a good sized FAE used you would think it was a tactical nuke) a WMD? You can use things like natural gas to make a FAE. So should we ban people from having natural gas?

dustind

July 6, 2003, 09:58 PM

People have the right to say, print, post, paint, take pictures, etc, of anything that they want, as long as it does not violate someone else's rights. If someone has fictional child porn it is legal. The reason is simple, no ones rights are violated. It may offend millions, but everything offends someone, it is irrelevant.

If someone wants a nuke, can safely store it, and can guarantee that it wont be misused, they should be allowed to have it. The difference between nuclear weapons and small arms is that if someone wants to do something bad, like kill as many people as they can. There are many things that do a better job than firearms, but almost nothing can compare to a nuclear weapon, if people could get them they could hold the world hostage.

I voted the third from the bottom, but almost voted for the second choice from the bottom.

Ed Brunner

July 6, 2003, 10:02 PM

What would be your legal basis for prohibiting private ownership of WMD's?

Glamdring

July 6, 2003, 10:22 PM

From this link:
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/ware.htm
Have to scroll down a little not the first item on the page.
ORGANOPHOSPHATES

Organophosphates (OPs) is the currently used generic term that includes all insecticides containing phosphorus. Other names used, but no longer in vogue, are organic phosphates, phosphorus insecticides, nerve gas relatives, and phosphoric acid esters. All organophosphates are derived from one of the phosphorus acids, and as a class are generally the most toxic of all pesticides to vertebrates. Because of the similarity of OP chemical structures to the "nerve gases", their modes of action are also similar. Their insecticidal qualities were observed in Germany during World War II in the study of the extremely toxic OP nerve gases sarin, soman, and tabun. Initially, the discovery was made in search of substitutes for nicotine, which was heavily used as an insecticide but in short supply in Germany.

The OPs have two distinctive features: they are generally much more toxic to vertebrates than other classes of insecticides, and most are chemically unstable or nonpersistent. It is this latter characteristic that brought them into agricultural use as substitutes for the persistent organochorines.

Mode of action--The OPs work by tying up or inhibiting certain important enzymes of the nervous system, namely cholinesterase (ChE). The enzyme is said to be phosphorylated when it becomes attached to to the phosphorous moiety of the insecticide, a binding that is irreversible. This inhibition results in the accumulation of acetylcholine (ACh) at the neuron/neuron and neuron/muscle (neuromuscular) junctions or synapses, causing rapid twitching of voluntary muscles and finally paralysis.

Classification--All OPs are esters of phosphorus having varying combinations of oxygen, carbon, sulfur and nitrogen attached, resulting in six different subclasses: phosphates, phospho-nates, phosphorothioates, phosphorodithioates, phosphorothiolates and phosphoramidates. These subclasses are easily identified by their chemical names.

Glamdring

July 6, 2003, 10:41 PM

Another general link
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/wtc_chemicalweapons.html

The point I am trying to make is how do you seperate "bad" from "good" use of tools or knowledge? With laws?

WMD's are already used world wide for "good" things, agriculture, disease control (think West Nile, etc).

Much of the technology was available for WWI. Some WMD tech predates American Civil War. Link: http://www.usuhs.mil/cbw/history.htm
During the Crimean War, there were several proposals to initiate chemical warfare to assist the Allies, particularly to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. In 1854, Lyon Playfair, a British chemist, proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use primarily against enemy ships. The British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as “bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy.”4(p22) Playfair’s response outlined a different concept, which was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century:

There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.4(pp22–23)

There were other proposals for chemical warfare during the Crimean War, but none were approved.
During the American Civil War, John Doughty, a New York City school teacher, was one of the first to propose the use of chlorine as a chemical warfare agent. He envisioned a 10-in. artillery shell filled with 2 to 3 qt of liquid chlorine that, when released, would produce many cubic feet of chlorine gas.

If the shell should explode over the heads of the enemy, the gas would, by its great specific gravity, rapidly fall to the ground: the men could not dodge it, and their first intimation of its presence would be by its inhalation, which would most effectually disqualify every man for service that was within the circle of its influence; rendering the disarming and capturing of them as certain as though both their legs were broken.5(p27)

So there is NO way to prevent people in modern countries like USA from manufacturing their own if they wanted to. Just like gun laws can't stop people from making guns (or using).

FallenAngelAR

July 6, 2003, 11:03 PM

If every citizen had a tactical nuke in their garage do you think the towel-headed religious zealots would pick on someone else (hmmm maybe we should try)

just a thought

Dylan

brownie0486

July 6, 2003, 11:17 PM

The laws of common sense based on others past performances as sub humans, either intentionally or otherwise.

We actually need a law for that which is common sense?

Books on WMD are not going to kill millions. Do it yourself kits aren't for the faint of heart and require much knowledge that most don't have. Sure they can get it on the internet and books, start building one in your garage as a tinkerer, I take you as a threat to my families safety.

I don't need to move, you need to stop what you are doing.

Brownie

cordex

July 7, 2003, 12:25 AM

Brownie,
If you had one next door to me, they would never find your body. It's called a preemptive strike, and of course, I'm exercising my god given rights at that time as well.

I'd be the one with the knife going door to door at night slitting the throats of those who had them personally tucked under their bed. Hope we are on the same page now.
emphasis mine
That's all I needed to hear.

You believe you have the right to murder someone because they simply own something. Not because of their past behavior or anything - just because they own something that scares you.

*shrug*

You're not alone, but you aren't in great company either.

bjengs

July 7, 2003, 01:11 AM

Ugh. This whole off-topic nuke discussion is really lame. I think a thread of just that topic took up like 17 pages over at anti-state.com.

For the purposes of having done this poll, the last two categories are in essence, the same. I appreciate those who are in a huff about some people stopping short of ND ownership. However, the main cause for concern, in my book (and I feel like I've posted this a dozen times here with little response), is that only half of the folks who voted allowed for anything larger than small arms.

If you believe in natural rights, that the right to life includes the right to defend as may become necessary, then you must by extension believe in the right to own such things as tanks, Apaches, or heavy artillery (don't confuse a natural right to own with a case-by-case need to own). If you believe in the spirit of the Constitution, that is the letter of the Constitution tempered by the writings of the Framers contemporaneous to its writing, you know that they wished every citizen to be on equal armament terms with whatever standing army the government had (and they also disdained a standing army).

If you are a strict Constitutionalist, then perhaps you get into all the mess about what "arms" means. Of course, then you lend validity to that whole "well-regulated militia" argument. And I always found "strict Constitutionalism" a really ill-advised philosophy since I think it's really inhumane to say a black man is only three-fifths of a person. And the post office should be privatized. ;)

The problem I have when you believe that the right to keep and bear arms falls well short of the current available weaponry is that you are in essence saying that a man's rights are derived not from God/a Creator/nature, but from a 200-year old contract that he never signed.

Doesn't this give anyone else here pause?

brownie0486

July 7, 2003, 08:03 AM

Cordex,
Lets ask this of you and get a response.

Your neighbor is outside with an ak-47, 30 rd mag in mag well. He's waving it around, not being assaultive in anyway but you notice he is constantly pointing it in the direction of your house and the party going on in the backyard.

Do you deem him a threat to your safety, and if so, what do you do about it? Or do you just shrug and say to yourself, he's exercising his right on his own property.

It's perfectly legal he has the arm and is on his own property exercising some right you think he has so it should be no business of yours right? You have no say in is actions or there possible consequences to your family.

You would, of course, mind your own business and leave the fine fellow alone as obviously his rights somehow supercede yours and common sense. He's not a threat to you and your family until something happens?

I don't think so. As a matter of fact, one poster actually thought I should pick up my family and move away in lieu of violating some presumed right he was exercising on his own property.

I'll pretty much go out on the limb here by saying that if you had a nuke in your possession in my neighborhood that no one would be happy with you and you would be making them some nervous to boot. Matter of fact, I don't see any neighbor voicing what I hear on this thread from some that they would ignore that as, after all, he's just exercising one of his rights.

Now the same village idiot is seen not taking taking the precautions necessary to store it and has no safeguards in place, matter of fact, he is out on the lawn like the man with the ak fiddling with it where all the neighbors can get a good look.

Think there might be a meeting in the neighborhood and a little vigilantiism in the works to preempt his ND which could happen at any time? No you say? Not in your neighborhood? They'd all be willing to put up with the potential threat to their safety and let him live in harmony with himself?
Again, don't think so.

As to the previous post where thats all you needed to hear, I wish I had known, I'd have stated it before for you.

Is that radical on my part? Sure it would be. No less so than your nuke in the garage is radical and threatening to my safety. You meet radicals on their terms by being as radical back.

I'm not one to put up with someone threatening me or my safety constantly without taking some form of action which will negate the threat.

Your mileage may vary.

Brownie