Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,896
    Location:
    The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
  2. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    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 :)

    atek3
     
  3. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    Because making something illegal to own keeps criminals and terrorists from owning them.:rolleyes:
     
  5. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    Virginia
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    In some cases, it certainly goes a long ways. How many criminals have used SAMs in the U.S. recently?:rolleyes:
     
  8. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    They would be a bit much to stick in the waist of your baggy pants ...

    :neener:
     
  9. iapetus

    iapetus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    614
    Location:
    UK
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,523
    Location:
    Where the one eyed man is king
    Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here? Let's try to get our "assault weapons" back first.
     
  12. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Why not just ban basements?
     
  13. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Amen! "What if..." this and "What if..." that and "What if..." six dozen other things are entirely beside the point.
     
  15. Backwoods

    Backwoods Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Ohio
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Northern Cal
    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

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    993
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Illinois
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,896
    Location:
    The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
    And do you think it's OK?:confused:
     
  21. Hal

    Hal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    971
    Location:
    N.E. Ohio
    Yes. It's a clever way of skirting the issue.:barf:
     
  22. JPM70535

    JPM70535 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Sunny Florids
    The concept that the ownership of Nukes by an individual or group of private citizens, (The bomb in the basement) is O.K., just doesn't ring true.

    In spite of the RKBA, there are just some devices, (WMD) that just do not belong in your hands or mine as private citizens. While we may be morally responsible and would never misuse such a device, the same can not be said of others who unfortunately share the same planet. As long as there are extremists, aka suicide bombers who are willing to die for their cause, whatever it might be, and don't care how many innocents they take with them, then WMD (nukes) should only be kept by groups who can reasonably guarantee the security of those devices.

    Although no storage facility is 100 percent secure, the odds of a terrorist organization being unable to penetrate a facility controlled by our military are much greater than any security system possible by you or me.
     
  23. clubsoda22

    clubsoda22 member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    SE PA
    A libertarian america probably wouldn't piss off as many other countries as current america does.
     
  24. Greg Bell

    Greg Bell Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2003
    Messages:
    754
    "A libertarian america probably wouldn't piss off as many other countries as current america does."

    The U.S.A. is the richest nation the world has ever seen. A non-nuclear libertarian America would quickly be conquered by an outside, nuclear armed, power.
     
  25. Chris Rhines

    Chris Rhines Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Potomac, Maryland - Behind enemy lines!!
    I have never heard a compelling reason that I should be forbidden from owning a nuclear explosive. Most of the reasons expressed on this thread are either factualy incorrect ("There's no way to own a nuke without threatening other people") or are rooted in emotionalism ("I don't want my idiot neighbor owning a nuke.")

    So let's clear those two out of the way - There are many possible nonaggressive uses for nuclear explosives (most of which have never been explored because only the government can own them.) And there are just as many things that I don't want my idiot neighbor to own, starting with his ugly-??? bass boat. But that isn't rightly my business.

    Nobody (well, almost nobody) denies that the government has a right to own nukes, as well as weaponized gases, biotoxins, and other pleasantries. Since our government allegedly derives its powers from the consent of the people, it follows that the people have a preexisting right to own the same weapons that the government does. Pretty simple, at least from where I'm sitting.

    I'd consider accepting the ban of any weapon that the government also bans for its own self.

    - Chris
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page