Why Did it Have to be … Guns? (He is absolutly right)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taking a little flak here, Jeff? (I'd insert a smilie here, but I've apparently disabled them.)

Oh my, I really and truly enjoy this site, and nothing in this thread will change that fact. I think of you folks as my buddies, and maybe that's naive, but it's true.

These ultra-libertarian threads always throw me for a loop, because 95% of the time I'm in your camp, but sometimes I think some of you go too far.

Anyway, I note that those dang "ultras" are throwing around plenty of rhetoric, but I'd really like to hear a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a simple question: Do you think any living person should be able to purchase a Stinger missle for cash, at the local hardware store, without providing any identification? It really is a simple "yes" or "no" question, but I don't really expect any simple "yes" or "no" responses. Just rhetoric that evades the question.

And now I'm going to bed, but I'll check in tomorrow night.
 
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. — THOMAS JEFFERSON (1791)
I'd really like to hear a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a simple question: Do you think any living person should be able to purchase a Stinger missle for cash, at the local hardware store, without providing any identification?
Click to expand...
In a society of "Moral" and "Free" men the only obvious answer from me, is a simple yes.

I take it some here disagree, and that's fine for them, they are afraid of evil. I was taught to acknowledge the presence of evil and to be prepared to fight it when it came my way. I chose not to control anyone but myself.

Ya gotta die sometime.
 
SteelyDan said: Anyway, I note that those dang "ultras" are throwing around plenty of rhetoric, but I'd really like to hear a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a simple question: Do you think any living person should be able to purchase a Stinger missle for cash, at the local hardware store, without providing any identification? It really is a simple "yes" or "no" question, but I don't really expect any simple "yes" or "no" responses. Just rhetoric that evades the question.
Click to expand...

Well, I could point out that in the early 1960's, for the sum of about $1000, [edited to add: in today's dollars] one could, without difficulty, order through the mail a Solothurn Sl8-l000 or Lahti L39 20mm [20mm x138mm B] semiautomatic antitank rifle, capable of penetrating up to 40mm [1 9/16 in] of armour plate at fairly short range.

But that would be cheating. So yes.

Dex }:>=-
 
Last edited:
I asked you to clarify, Jeff, and you did. In the quote I referred, to you confused me becuase you seemed to be saying that it was difficult to obtain and use these military weapons, and therefore laws wouldn't make any difference. I misunderstood you, so I asked you to clarify. In the case of wmd's I don't think that they should be legally available to anyone. I thought you were referring to weapons such as stingers, rpgs, etc, which can be found much easier than wmd's (if wmd's can be found at all, which you pointed out.)

I agree that it would be very difficult to build a stinger. You asked where you draw the line in an earlier post. I submit that you draw the line at or near wmd's. It is my understanding that the second ammendment of the Constitution gives US citizens the right to keep and bear arms so that they might have to the ability to resist and/or overthrow a tyrannical government. I can't think of any advantage that wmd's would give you in overthrowing a government, unless you resorted to terrorism, and I don't believe that terrorism is supported by the second ammendment.

I see weapons such as stingers, rpgs, etc as having some legitimate use in such a fight. Same goes for conventional explosives. One could very well need to take out a bridge, tank, or aircraft in a fight against a modern tyrannical government.

Back to the original post, I personally agree, if my elected official doesn't trust me with tools to ensure that he does not abuse the power and money that is entrusted to him, than I don't trust him, either.

And Steely Dan: Yes. Maybe show some sort of id/proof that you are a US citizen, but that's it. And I second what Baba Louie said.
 
I may be in the minority addressing this question, and I am sure to be taken to task for my opinion, but here goes.

I am a product of the fifties, small town, Mid Atlantic upbringing. My memories of those times are forever fresh in my mind even if what happened yesterday is a blur. Yes, there was a difference in peoples behavior then and in their "MORALS" And their in lies the answer as to why the same lackof Government interference in their citizens lives then, just will not work now.

I'm sure many older members of THR will agree that life seemed to be much less complicated then and with the exception of those living in large cities, seldom felt the need to lock their doors at any time (car or home)

School shootings were unheard of, and not because there was a lack of Nerdy misfits to be tormented by the "JOCKS", or the lack of access to firearms by said nerds. The reason lay in the morals of the times. While I am not a religious person by any standard, I had the Christian Morality ingrained in my being as a matter of course, ie almost to the last one, all kids attended Sunday School and Church regularly where adherence to the 10 Commandments was stressed.

I am not saying that lack of religion is to blame for the lack of morality rampant in todays society, all I can do is state the obvious. In the fifties there was no Gangsta Rap, no epidemic of Drug misuse, no home invasions, or car jackings on a daily basis, damn few residential burglaries, and virtually no "armed Robberies" Although there may welkl be other factors explaining the difference in behavior between then and now I keep coming back to lack of morality.

For that reason I have to side with those who believe that some regulation affecting the RKBA is a necessary evil. Given the lack of Morality, (Judgement?) I would have real concerns in giving unrestricted access to explosive devices, (and yes I know about Anfo) and fully automatic weapons by children, career criminals, mental defectives, and tongue in cheek, Lawyers and Politicians.

Several members call for the return of public execution as a deferrent to crime, and I am in complete agreement with the stipulation that the time frame from conviction to execution be no more than 1 year. It would have no impact if the executed criminal had committed his crime in the last century as is the case today.

As to the 95% of law abiding citizens, the 2nd amendment says it all. and quite plainly. The right of the People to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
 
Dear Jeff,
My name is Bill Gates. Maybe you've heard of me. I'm the nerdy looking guy with the glasses.....oh yeah, and the money. I have lots of that. I have more money than God. I just wanted you to know, Jeff, that I am very unhappy with you. You see, it has always been my dream to rule the world under an iron fist, and now that I have the money to do that....well, I just can't. And it's because of you, Jeff. If it weren't for you and your stinking "reasonable" laws, I could just go out and get a nuke. I like nukes, Jeff, and I want some, but no. Congress says I can't have them. Well, listen up mister. One of these days those stupid libertarians that sit around and spout platitudes and vomit idealism all over their keyboards are going to get their way, and when they do, I'm going to go out and buy all the legal nukes I can. I will use them as my passport to a world wide reign of terror that I will call microsoft.nuk but there won't be anything small or soft about what you get, Jeff. Because it's only you and your "reasonable" laws that stand in my way. And that makes me very angry.

Sincerely,
William Gates
Future Chairman and CEO
of your life
 
Let me take a little crack at some WMD/2nd reasoning here. I'll use a lot of absolute wording, but don't take that as meaning I actually know what I'm talking about, or have a concrete position on this subject. Just some more conjecture. :D

Chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, and other such WMD devices are designed with huge damage areas and massive, indiscriminate effects in mind. Their very design and nature makes it outright impossible to use in a limited, defined fashion. I will go so far as to say it is impossible to use WMD without immediately killing or at least causing a huge amount of harm to innocents. For instance, say there was some total, complete dictatorial take over of the United States. Massive amounts of troops are mobilized against the citizens of the USA. Even if a private citizen had him/herself a chemical weapon to use against a mass concentration of troops in a remote area, the resulting effects of the weapon would cause death, or at least very severe negative effects on an innocent, uninvolved party. As such, it is my (purely for the sake of argument, and not necessarily representative of my long-term conclusions on the matter ;)) contention that WMD cannot be used in a fashion that would not violate the rights of fellow Americans, and as such is not covered in the 2nd Amendment.

Anybody want to take a crack at poking holes in this position? :)
 
DEX -
The 20mm Lathi was 99.95 complete and the 20mm Solothurn was 189.95. Ammo was about 1.00/rd. For ~$395-495 (depending on availablity) you could get a 37mm or 47mm WWII anti-tank cannon. And the world was so much more dangerous then. Ye Olde Hunter's Lodge was the place to buy them along with just about any kind of de-wat SMG you might want. I would have one each of the 20mm except I couldn't figure out how to get the six-foot crate past the door of my parents house back then... :D :D
 
... such as ethereal fuels used in missile propulsion...
Click to expand...
Jeff,

I have an interest in rocket fuels going way back, but I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the "ethereal" class of fuels. Could you provide some more information about these, or a link please?

Many thanks.


(My apologies for the off-topic question.)
 
Nightfall

Chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, and other such WMD devices are designed with huge damage areas and massive, indiscriminate effects in mind. ... As such, it is my ... contention that WMD cannot be used in a fashion that would not violate the rights of fellow Americans, and as such is not covered in the 2nd Amendment.

Anybody want to take a crack at poking holes in this position?
Click to expand...


I suppose a "pure libertanarian" argument could be that you would be allowed to own WMDs, just not use them. (Unless you could find a way of using them without harming innocents).

Still, I agree with your position (I consider myself mostly libertanarian, but but think some of the "pure" positions are impractical or utopian).



Mind you, that's talking about the RKBA in its pure form, rather than the "nd Amendment.

Are WMDs "arms"? If so, I suppose it does allow them.

On the other hand, I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that at the time the BoR was writen, "arms" meant the sort of weapons a soldier could carry himself. Cannon etc were termed "ordnance" (and I guess WMDs would have been if they had existed then). Does anyone know if that statement is true, or just a random internet nonfact?
 
iapetus, the body of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, makes provision for the issuance of "letters of marque and reprisal" by Congress. If I understand correctly, those were documents that commissioned privately-owned warships to fight against our enemies in wartime, either alongside ships of the U.S. Navy or independently. I'll look for the reference.

EDIT—here it is: in one example, JohnDog put it very well at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22434&highlight=letters+marque

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...

Look up what a Letter of Marque was back in the 1700s. It was essential an "authority given to private persons to fit out an armed ship and use it to attack, capture, and plunder of enemy merchant ships in time of war". Notice how the Constitution doesn't say that the Letter needs to be granted to only a non-citizen. So IMHO the Constitution recognized that people back in the 18th century could own battleships, which was pretty high on the WMD scale back then.

What does this mean today? H&ll if I know! At least I should be able to own a M1A1 Abrams or an A-10 Warthog, if I can come up with the cash!!
Click to expand...
Scary, huh? Congress was given the power to declare war; the People had the power to wage it. It shows a philosophy of government that isn't too widespread today.
 
I'd forgotten about that bit.

If I remember rightly:

"Letters of marque" permitted a private vessel (or rather its owners/captain) to attack the commercial shipping of an enemy nation.

"Letters of reprisal" (I think) allowed those who had had their ships illegally seized by a foreign nation to seize ships of that nation in compensation.
 
Actually, a warship is or never was considered a weapon of mass destruction.

I guess I'm not going to argue any more about this; if you guys really believe that anyone-- or any group of people-- have the right to own any military weapon, including biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons-- then, hey, that is your opinion. Knock yourselves out.

I agree, it follows the Libertarian "principle" to its fullest conclusion, but it certainly doesn't make any sense outside of that very narrow-minded dimension.

No logic, no rationality, no common sense.....but we have principle. Yay.




I have an interest in rocket fuels going way back, but I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the "ethereal" class of fuels. Could you provide some more information about these, or a link please?
Click to expand...

I consider any fuel or propellant that isn't solid or even viscous to be liquid , gas or liquified fuel. These fuels are "ethereal" becaue of the vaporous nature of their state. This requires greater consideration when storing or transporting or maintaining weapons with such materials. I'm not sure how many modern combat explosives use liquid or liquified fuels in their propellant systems anymore. Maybe none.

Solid or viscous fuels are more stable than any fuel that releases ethereal matter, since the ethereal matter becomes combustible.
 
Clearly you don't trust me or my fellow voters with the simple possession of weapons, so why would you expect us to trust you with even more power?
Click to expand...
I simply want a 4473 filled out for explosives, arms over 1" in caliber, and Full-auto weapons. No tax, no BS. You want to transfer your handgun or rifle to whomever, that's fine with me.

And Don Gwinn: Hell no I dont trust someone under the age of 18 with high explosives. If he kills someone, I want someone I can hang, not some one I have to throw in Juvi Hall. Yes, yes, he can get it supplied to him. In that case, we hang the supplier, and hold the under 18yr old till he is old enough to be hanged.

But I also want murders, rapes, kidnappings, terrorism, etc etc to be punished by death. If you start actually getting tough on crime, then maybe someone will think twice about commiting a crime. Maybe. If nothing else, you free up prison space.:)
 
Thanks Jeff. So "ethereal" is just your personal term for a non-solid fuels. And here you had me going thinking that there was a whole class of ether-based fuels (which is the dictionary definition of "ethereal", as it applies to chemistry) that I'd never heard of! :)

Generally, rocket fuels are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals. Which isn't to say that they're not dangerous, they're just not more dangerous than other dangerous chemicals. Like modern smokeless powder, they don't tend to be explosive, as their purpose is to propel, rather than explode. Hydrogen peroxide can explode under some circumstances, but I can't off the top of my head think of any other rocket fuels that will explode in their normal state. Some low-vapor-pressure fuels will explode if vaporized into the air at an appropriate centration, but that's no different than gasoline, LP gas, and many other things. (Ether being particularly bad in that respect. ;))

In general, I don't see any reason why one would want to have general limitations on purchasing the components of rocket fuel.
 
I side with Nightfall's position at this point.

Rendering your own land inhospitable is suicide, not self-defense.
 
So- evil genius rich guy wants nukes? Do you think he couldn't find a third world country to buy and manufacture them there?:D

Most large wapons are at least moderately expensive so a group of people would have to pool their money to buy them. Some people in the neighborhood might even have some of their money confiscated at gunpoint by this group to help pay for them. Hey!! That sounds a lot like a government equiping an army.

I have a serious question for the folks that think there should be limits on weapons. How does the moral authority to make such decisions get from the individual to the group. If it's wrong for an individual to own such things how does it become ok for the group to own them? Why is a group more moral than any individual?

From my reading of history groups are just as bad as any individual, but having bad things done by group effort allows the blame to be spread so thinly that nobody get hung.
 
OK, let me throw my 2 cents in....

I view the 2A as allowing the people the means to keep our government honest. And, in my casual studies of military history, I see the most powerful weapon a military possesses as the infantry soldier.

Someone earlier asked "Where is the line?" between an arm that ought not to be infringed under the 2A, and something else.

The "line", as I see it is this: Allow a citizen to carry anything the infantry soldier can carry. Full-auto SAW-No Problem. Grenade Launcher-Have at it. Some kind of Buzz-Lightyear-Laser-Beam--Sure. Mind you, I'm also endorsing that if you misbehave with that weapon, that you'll face serious jail/execution penalties, but I wouldn't put any restrictions in owning them or responsibly using them.

But....as to the tangent of WMD, F16 fighters, Nukes, whatever--No. These are crew-served and/or meant for masses of targets, and don't fit into my definition. Citizens ought to be able to own and carry a weapon meant for individual use and against individual targets.

Of course, YMMV.
 
MacViolinist:
People tend to look down on sarcasm, but when used properly it can prove a point brilliantly. Well done.
 
Blah, blah, blah. . . society used to be a lot more stringent about holding people responsible for thier actions, starting at a pretty early age, and this set some reasonably high expectations for standards of behavior. This level of expectation also produced a much more moral society.

Today, society makes too many excuses (e.g. cultutral diversity) and seems to be willing to accept much lower standards and we all suffer because of it.

It isn't that hard, really. We expect you to behave decently, and if you don't and won't, we'll get rid of you - any questions?:confused: :D
 
Actually, MacViolinist's post-- sarcastic or not-- missed the mark completely. He wallowed in his passion play of logic, but failed to understand the truth of the matter.

The truth is, many of the WMDs I mentioned CANNOT still be obtained by the wealthiest and most determined of nationalists on the planet. So his whole idea of, "Well, if only I could get around the law, then I would blow the world up, even though I have the money to purchase them now" is totally absurd.

That line of logic works perfectly with guns, and that's one of the many reasons why gun control is not only wrong, but illogical. But it doesn't work with weapons which cannot be obtained by any single entity other than governments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
madmike
M
F
  • Locked
Litmus test for liberty
Replies
4
Views
363
geekWithA.45
G
dscampbell
  • Locked
In light of the extreme legislation in California I posted this on my Facebook page
Replies
4
Views
609
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
D
  • Locked
Why trust the politicians who take your guns?
Replies
18
Views
724
Bartholomew Roberts
B
G
  • Locked
Why Did It Have to be Guns? by L. Neil Smith
Replies
11
Views
1K
thexrayboy
T
Back
Top