1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The nuclear bomb in the basement?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MicroBalrog, Dec 30, 2003.

  1. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

  2. atek3

    atek3 Well-Known Member

    Mary is pretty strong, but I still wonder, where is the line?

    I mean as a radical anarcho-yada yada "nut", I think the citizenry should have at least the hardware capable of handling annoying facists that tend to pop up every now and then. So anti-tank and anti-helicopter tools are in. But, I don't know, is a society armed with stingers and javelins a more polite society? Hopefully chris or ian will pop in for this one :)

  3. rock jock

    rock jock Well-Known Member

    Anti-helicopter devices can also be anti-airplane devices, so unless you are ready to cripple our transportation system and our national economic engine that it is a key part of, these had better remain on the banned list.
  4. Balog

    Balog Well-Known Member

    Because making something illegal to own keeps criminals and terrorists from owning them.:rolleyes:
  5. Balog

    Balog Well-Known Member

    Oh, and anti-home invasion guns can also be anti-cop guns. Unless we want to slaughter police officers I guess we better ban all firearms.
  6. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    With all due respect to everyone here, I've never gotten much out of these "Yeah, but what about nukes" debates. :)
  7. rock jock

    rock jock Well-Known Member

    In some cases, it certainly goes a long ways. How many criminals have used SAMs in the U.S. recently?:rolleyes:
  8. TallPine

    TallPine Well-Known Member

    They would be a bit much to stick in the waist of your baggy pants ...

  9. iapetus

    iapetus Well-Known Member

    Makes sense.

    Firearms can be used by the public without harming innocents, so you should be allowed to own them and use them responsibly.

    Nukes cannot be used by the public without harming innocents*, so should reasonably be banned.

    Nicely prohibits nukes without weakening the principle of lawful ownership of small arms.

    * Unless used as a club :)
  10. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Well-Known Member

    Where does one draw the line? I'd say you have to be able to use it morally. If there's no plausible moral use of a weapon, THEN it's wrong to have it.

    Guns, yeah, you can use those morally. You can pick out who gets hit, and see to it that they're only people who ought to be shot. The same is true of a wide range of weapons. Knives. Tasers. High powered microwave arrays. Remote controlled mines placed in your lawn.

    But poison gas blows with the wind. Germs spread infectiously. Nukes destroy such large areas as to guarantee innocent victims, even setting aside fallout. "Weapons of mass destruction" can't be used morally, outside of settings which really don't involve civilian use.

    And this DOES have some relevance to everyday life. If you live in an apartment building with thin walls, and you've got a gun you plan on using for self defense, you damned well ought to be taking measures to prevent over-penetration.
  11. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Well-Known Member

    Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here? Let's try to get our "assault weapons" back first.
  12. Preacherman

    Preacherman Well-Known Member

    Why not just ban basements?
  13. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    I'm with Mark. When I'm allowed to carry a pocket-knife with a spring-opener, I might get all worked up about nukes. Then again, I might hold out for bayonet lugs.
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Amen! "What if..." this and "What if..." that and "What if..." six dozen other things are entirely beside the point.
  15. Backwoods

    Backwoods Well-Known Member

    My take on this is that an American citizen should be able to own and use ANYTHING that does not cause/leave a lasting or uncontrolable danger to people, animals, or the enviornment. As I see it, this means no nuke, germ, or chemical weapons.

    If I have the money I should be able to buy an 8 inch howitzer and the ammo for it. Finding a range to shoot it would probably mean using a military range or maybe some ranch in Montana or other location with open spaces.

    Even then there would be no way you could store the ammo near other people, you'd need a place to serve as an ammo dump. I mean, no matter what you have the right to own, you don't have the right to place other people in danger. A pallet load or two of HE 8 inch projectiles just isn't a good thing to keep in the basement.

    Let's not get into how much ammo/powder/whatever is too much to store at home. If I had to make such a decision, you can be sure I'd set the mark rather high!

    Don in Ohio
  16. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Well-Known Member

    The 2nd Amendment was written to insure the People have the ability (means) to resist and defeat an oppressive Government (Foreign or Domestic). If our own Federal military can justify "Crew Saved Weapons as needed to defend against foreign threat; than the People/militia should also. But strategic and special purpose weapons and munitions that require large teams to support, operate, and store are best left in the hands of the Federal and State military. I think it was the SCOTUS in US v Miller that quoted the "Small arms of common issue to the Federalized Military" restrictions pertaining to weapons and the Militia. (Interesting how some now use the Miller case to support the banning of those very types of weapons.)

    And ammunition should be limited to that type that can be safely stored at room temp in a dry environment without the need for radioactive shielding or Chemical/Bio protection. And be safely stored for 2 years without the need to be repackaged or have the packing inspected.

    If the militia is to be called out in the event of foreign attack (which all states allow by law) the People should have immediate access to personal weapons that can reasonably repel an assault. Or be used to repel any federal forces that would side with a tyrannical Government, and not with the People and Constitution in times of civil rebellion.

    I know there are safety issues with some of these weapons, so I'm also in favor or storage guidelines/requirements for said weapons/ammo. They must be secured from criminals and those who are a real threat to society. But they must be available if needed by the people at the same time.

    Just my opinion

    Best regards,
  17. Dilettante

    Dilettante Well-Known Member

    Yesterday it was raining hard. It was hard to see and the road was wet. Just the kind of day where somebody could lose control of their vehicle and hit a pedestrian.
    I still drove to work. But I went slower than usual, and if I had questions about my tires or brakes, I would have taken the bus.

    We all like to think that we accept the consequences of our actions, but sometimes those risks involve other people. There is still a difference between reasonable and unreasonable risk imposed on others. It's not really a crisp bright line, but the difference between guns and nukes is huge.
  18. Blain

    Blain member

    A Libertarian America without nukes would fall prey to other nations with them. If a privatized defense force army, in said libertarian nation, safely kept and contained nukes to help dissuade predatory rogue nations, that would be just. I have no problem with groups, or individuals owning nuclear weapons if they can, and do have them saftely contained. What do you think our government does? Heck, anyone wanting to use a nuke or ill use would do so whether it was lawful or not, so what’s the point? I would support such a privatized army with nuclear weapons, heck, we hear all these complaints about Iraq and Iran possessing nukes, but who here complains about OUR ownership and possession of such weapons? Who here would be for us, no other countries mind you, just us disarming our nukes?
  19. Obiwan

    Obiwan Well-Known Member

    Show of hands please!

    Who wants their neighbor brewing up mustard gas????

    Put your hands down...you are scaring me:rolleyes:
  20. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    And do you think it's OK?:confused:

Share This Page