Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The vast majority of politicians can't even control themselves, still less the rest of us.
Why Did it Have to be … Guns? (He is absolutly right)
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
The vast majority of politicians can't even control themselves, still less the rest of us.
Michigander
Member
There should only be criminal actions, not criminal objects. No object, in the history of mankind, has ever committed a crime, at least as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, if the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is so that we, as individuals, can defend ourselves against a standing army and/or a corrupt and oppressive government, then why would we not be "allowed" to possess machine guns?
Also, if the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is so that we, as individuals, can defend ourselves against a standing army and/or a corrupt and oppressive government, then why would we not be "allowed" to possess machine guns?
It's all about responsibility. You buy a firearm/machinegun/explosives, it makes you responsible. Period.
You buy a hot cup of coffee and burn your lips on it-why should we make you independently wealthy because you were too stupid to check how hot it was?
Gun control doesn't keep people from shooting each other-the responsible individual does. I don't care if its a 10/22 or an M2HB. It would not matter if its "licenced" or not. It does not bring back the dead and it doesn't prevent the killing. Nobody is safer for it-it only means that law abiding citizens have to jump through stupid hoops.
If you can't trust a violent felon, smoke them. Plain and simple. It is not the responsibility of society to make them play nice. It is the individual, plain and simple.
Our forefathers kicked the British out because they would not recognise the rights of the individual. Now, we have legislators crawling out of the woodwork-"educated people", who are pulling "safety" out of thin air.:banghead:
You buy a hot cup of coffee and burn your lips on it-why should we make you independently wealthy because you were too stupid to check how hot it was?
Gun control doesn't keep people from shooting each other-the responsible individual does. I don't care if its a 10/22 or an M2HB. It would not matter if its "licenced" or not. It does not bring back the dead and it doesn't prevent the killing. Nobody is safer for it-it only means that law abiding citizens have to jump through stupid hoops.
If you can't trust a violent felon, smoke them. Plain and simple. It is not the responsibility of society to make them play nice. It is the individual, plain and simple.
Our forefathers kicked the British out because they would not recognise the rights of the individual. Now, we have legislators crawling out of the woodwork-"educated people", who are pulling "safety" out of thin air.:banghead:
M1911Owner
Member
No no no no NOOO!! Cannot DO that! That would be "prior restraint." The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't have prior restraint on the Freedom of the Press. They even ruled that the government could not use prior restraint to keep a guy from publishing detailed, classified information about the design of hydrogen bombs. The First Amendment is a part of the Constitution, and it would be completely unconstitutional to allow infringement of the First Amendment!
[/satire mode]
(Comparisons to the routine "prior restraint" the Court has allowed in violation of the Second Amendment, anyone?)
another okie
Member
"Ugh. You seem to forget that common sense aint common. And 58 years ago people werent blowing up restaruants and shooting people because they didnt get their way."
You couldn't be more wrong.
Explosives and school: do a search for "Bath, Michigan school disaster." Worse than Columbine.
Guns: Lincoln, killed for political revenge, 1865; Garfield, killed by a disappointed office-seeker, 1881; McKinley, killed by an anarchist, 1901; Kennedy, killed by a disgruntled ex-Marine and Communist, 1961.
If some people abuse their rights, punish them, don't restrict the rights of others.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Explosives and school: do a search for "Bath, Michigan school disaster." Worse than Columbine.
Guns: Lincoln, killed for political revenge, 1865; Garfield, killed by a disappointed office-seeker, 1881; McKinley, killed by an anarchist, 1901; Kennedy, killed by a disgruntled ex-Marine and Communist, 1961.
If some people abuse their rights, punish them, don't restrict the rights of others.
telomerase
Member
TNT? Dynamite? What century are you living in? The bacteria from your own gut, the sequence for a couple of toxins (published in many papers), some restriction enzymes, some antibiotics for resistance selection, and some salt, tryptone, and yeast extract is all anyone who can read needs to kill EVERYONE.
Now I suppose you'll be for "Bacteria Control".... well, good luck. When bacteria are outlawed, only outlaws will have bacteria.
Now I suppose you'll be for "Bacteria Control".... well, good luck. When bacteria are outlawed, only outlaws will have bacteria.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Moparmike, it's pretty simple. You would not be considered "despicable." But no, if you came up against a candidate who believed in fewer restrictions, I'd be crazy to vote for you. Sorry if that ruffles your feathers; it's nothing at all personal. 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? 
Illinois is even now experiencing a textbook illustration of L. Neil's principle, which I've been trying to explain to my "non-political" liberal coworker. She expressed the sentiment that I must vote based on more than just guns. Of course, she herself does not vote. No point, you know. Too busy. Has a child, after all.
Anyway, she has recently decided that she hates Governor Blagojevich. I don't blame her, but she thought he was fine until a month or so ago and even says she would have voted for him. . . . if she bothered to vote.
About a month ago Blagojevich needed to give a State of the State address and introduce a new budget that was still going to have a several-billion-dollar deficit despite his goofy tax-increases, so he set up a straw man. He attacked the State Board of Education for all its failures and its bureaucracy. He suggested creating a Department of Education which would be a cabinet department and report to--who else? The Governor!
He did not mention that the bureaucracy and failures at the ISBE can almost all be traced to the Legislature and its idiotic fiats. He didn't mention that this new system would roughly double his personal power and create a gigantic new source of patronage jobs for him to sell to Democrats. And he didn't mention that the ISBE has done a surprisingly good job with the idiotic tasks it has been assigned (most of which concern distributing many copies of paperwork.)
So she's up in arms about that. The truckers hate him for their giant tax increases. All the union workers are wondering why they helped him when he's driving business out of the state and closing down even efficient and necessary state institutions downstate while Chicagoland failures stay open . . . .. and now he's taking fund-raising vacations to California to raise funds for his next campaign. Most people have not yet noticed his new plan to spend MILLIONS of dollars in STATE funds on an image and advertising campaign to sell him as a strong leader, but around here a lot of people have noticed that he refused to move to the state capital and forces most of the state government leadership to commute between Springfield and Chicago.
Anyway, as I told her, I predicted this long ago. Not the specifics, of course, but I knew he'd be a disaster because he consistently attacked the right to keep and bear arms. That marked him clearly as the kind of elitist who believes he can and must force the rest of us to toe his line. He reserves the final resort to force to himself and his chose surrogates.
No matter what anyone tells you, no man really wants to disarm a sane adult for his own good.
For additional insight into Illinois government, I refer you to my sig quote, in which the Legislature publicly admitted that they were keeping the concealed weapons statutes on the books purely because they resulted in a high arrest rate!
Illinois is even now experiencing a textbook illustration of L. Neil's principle, which I've been trying to explain to my "non-political" liberal coworker. She expressed the sentiment that I must vote based on more than just guns. Of course, she herself does not vote. No point, you know. Too busy. Has a child, after all.
Anyway, she has recently decided that she hates Governor Blagojevich. I don't blame her, but she thought he was fine until a month or so ago and even says she would have voted for him. . . . if she bothered to vote.
About a month ago Blagojevich needed to give a State of the State address and introduce a new budget that was still going to have a several-billion-dollar deficit despite his goofy tax-increases, so he set up a straw man. He attacked the State Board of Education for all its failures and its bureaucracy. He suggested creating a Department of Education which would be a cabinet department and report to--who else? The Governor!
He did not mention that the bureaucracy and failures at the ISBE can almost all be traced to the Legislature and its idiotic fiats. He didn't mention that this new system would roughly double his personal power and create a gigantic new source of patronage jobs for him to sell to Democrats. And he didn't mention that the ISBE has done a surprisingly good job with the idiotic tasks it has been assigned (most of which concern distributing many copies of paperwork.)
So she's up in arms about that. The truckers hate him for their giant tax increases. All the union workers are wondering why they helped him when he's driving business out of the state and closing down even efficient and necessary state institutions downstate while Chicagoland failures stay open . . . .. and now he's taking fund-raising vacations to California to raise funds for his next campaign. Most people have not yet noticed his new plan to spend MILLIONS of dollars in STATE funds on an image and advertising campaign to sell him as a strong leader, but around here a lot of people have noticed that he refused to move to the state capital and forces most of the state government leadership to commute between Springfield and Chicago.
Anyway, as I told her, I predicted this long ago. Not the specifics, of course, but I knew he'd be a disaster because he consistently attacked the right to keep and bear arms. That marked him clearly as the kind of elitist who believes he can and must force the rest of us to toe his line. He reserves the final resort to force to himself and his chose surrogates.
No matter what anyone tells you, no man really wants to disarm a sane adult for his own good.
For additional insight into Illinois government, I refer you to my sig quote, in which the Legislature publicly admitted that they were keeping the concealed weapons statutes on the books purely because they resulted in a high arrest rate!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Stick a fork in it cause it is done.
Good arguments all. You either have a right or you do not. "Reasonable restrictions" are not to protect Joe Average, they are just point dilution on the slippery slope to tyranny.
Human nature causes us to rise to the expectation. If we expected a 12 year old to be responsible with the M60MG, then he would be responsible. Real funny how that works It is called parenting, ethics, morals.
Conversely, if you have "zero tolerance" policies, safety scizzors, non-toxic paste, etc., then the yunggins don't learn any LIFE EXPERIENCE. They are taught to be risk averse, stay in the protective bubble, go play the nintendo.
How do we learn? Mostly through experience.
How do we behave? As we were taught.
Good arguments all. You either have a right or you do not. "Reasonable restrictions" are not to protect Joe Average, they are just point dilution on the slippery slope to tyranny.
Human nature causes us to rise to the expectation. If we expected a 12 year old to be responsible with the M60MG, then he would be responsible. Real funny how that works
It is called parenting, ethics, morals.Conversely, if you have "zero tolerance" policies, safety scizzors, non-toxic paste, etc., then the yunggins don't learn any LIFE EXPERIENCE. They are taught to be risk averse, stay in the protective bubble, go play the nintendo.
How do we learn? Mostly through experience.
How do we behave? As we were taught.
Should anyone be allowed to buy VX nerve gas?
Should anyone be allowed to buy concentrated botulin toxin contained within RPG systems?
Should anyone be allowed to buy sarin nerve gas?
Should a group who is publicly known to be a cult, yet has broken no laws, be allowed to buy the above weapons in, say, massive amounts?
Come on, guys, let's see how far that good old radical, Libertarian, George Bernard Shaw analogy can go.......
Come on guys, can just ANYONE buy ANY amount of deadly wmd contained in ANY delivery sytem?
If not, why not? Do you guys even believe your own pablum?
What if a disgruntled Sargeant caught trying to steal biological weapons, but was found not-guilty in a court martial, wanted to buy 5 tons of VX nerve gas, should he? Should we trust him to make such a purchase, to own such material, since it is all about trust?? We must be evil & immoral sheeple, right, who don't trust their fellow man, if we try to prohibit such a purchase.
Maybe if you look hard enough, such transactions are covered under the second amendment. :rolleyes
Explosives and wmds are not in the same ideological realm as firearms and knives. They are, generally, uncontrolled. They are not, by anyone's definition, controllable weapons. They actually can go off and go BANG! when they are simply being stored. They are at the whim of multiple conditions that mere firearms are not.
Maybe RPGs don't sound so bad when compared to the above wmds. But where do we draw the line?
If you are not willing to draw that line for the above weapons for the above scenarios, then your ideas are far more dangerous than ANY politician's.
Sorry, I call them as I see them. Principle loses all its luster when it's upheld at the expense of utter rationality.
If you want to go out and buy your fifty gallons of fertilizer or propane and try to make a bomb out of it, go knock yourself out. But, come on, at least make it challenging.
Should a man who has been kicked off from multiple commercial flights-- but has committed no felonies-- be allowed to buy an RPG?
Sure, he could get one on the black market, but should the laws allow him to do it easily and legally?
BTW, I see nothing wrong with fully-automatic firearms. They are no different than other firearms, they just have a different action. Same realm of principle.
Should anyone be allowed to buy concentrated botulin toxin contained within RPG systems?
Should anyone be allowed to buy sarin nerve gas?
Should a group who is publicly known to be a cult, yet has broken no laws, be allowed to buy the above weapons in, say, massive amounts?
Come on, guys, let's see how far that good old radical, Libertarian, George Bernard Shaw analogy can go.......
Come on guys, can just ANYONE buy ANY amount of deadly wmd contained in ANY delivery sytem?
If not, why not? Do you guys even believe your own pablum?
What if a disgruntled Sargeant caught trying to steal biological weapons, but was found not-guilty in a court martial, wanted to buy 5 tons of VX nerve gas, should he? Should we trust him to make such a purchase, to own such material, since it is all about trust?? We must be evil & immoral sheeple, right, who don't trust their fellow man, if we try to prohibit such a purchase.
Maybe if you look hard enough, such transactions are covered under the second amendment. :rolleyes
Explosives and wmds are not in the same ideological realm as firearms and knives. They are, generally, uncontrolled. They are not, by anyone's definition, controllable weapons. They actually can go off and go BANG! when they are simply being stored. They are at the whim of multiple conditions that mere firearms are not.
Maybe RPGs don't sound so bad when compared to the above wmds. But where do we draw the line?
If you are not willing to draw that line for the above weapons for the above scenarios, then your ideas are far more dangerous than ANY politician's.
Sorry, I call them as I see them. Principle loses all its luster when it's upheld at the expense of utter rationality.
If you want to go out and buy your fifty gallons of fertilizer or propane and try to make a bomb out of it, go knock yourself out. But, come on, at least make it challenging.
Should a man who has been kicked off from multiple commercial flights-- but has committed no felonies-- be allowed to buy an RPG?
Sure, he could get one on the black market, but should the laws allow him to do it easily and legally?
BTW, I see nothing wrong with fully-automatic firearms. They are no different than other firearms, they just have a different action. Same realm of principle.
Brian Dale
Member
My "False Dichotomy Alarm System" is going off pretty hard...f'rinstance,
What's your point here?
No. You've written the scenario; it can therefore proceed according to your whim. Give an example, please. You also refer to a hypothetical
Who, for example? Furthermore, who decides who's a cult? That's dangerous ground, as is all prior restraint couched in glib phrases.
THR's not the best place for that kind of expression.
No. Except that life is dangerous, and freedom is dangerous. The attempt to pretend otherwise is the most dangerous course of all.
What's your point here?
Michigander
Member
Would this also apply to gunpowder?
Who cares if it's a hypothetical? What does it have to do with logic? Let me elaborate.
A high-ranking officer with previously known and outspoken anti-government feelings is found not-guilty, in a military court, of attempting to steal biological weapons. There is reasonable doubt he did not attempt to gain such weapons, but many facts of the trial supported the prosecution. Two years later, the former officer, after years of publishing anti-government literature, wishes to buy a sizeable portion of the military's Vx nerve gas supply, which is now legal to sell to private citizens, so that the gov't or military does not have to pay to dispose of it appropriately.
Should the Sargeant be allowed to buy such weapons with a license?
Instead of answering the questions, you ask further questions yourself, as if the rights of the parties involved were contingent on mere details. According to much of the absolutist "reasoning" being thrown around here, I hardly see why it's appropriate to parse such terms and demand I put them under a scope for finer scrutiny. That's absurd and inconsistent.
Come on, Bob. A group, determined to be a cult like that one in Japan, wanted to buy some sarin nerve gas from the defense contractors. Should they be allowed to buy it?
Nebulous rhetoric. Are you afraid to address my statement? Bob, would you draw the line on my previous scenarios, or is doing so too dangerous to everyone's freedom?
Sure, but more importantly it would apply to more unstable explosive materials such as ethereal fuels used in missile propulsion and more potent substances used in the actual warheads.
Of course, the military isn't trained to use these devices. Anyone should be able to store them, transport them, and use them without proper training, right?
Afterall, Constitutional rights should never be restricted; and forcing prospective buyers of Stingers, Javelins, and Predators to undergo proper training would be restrictive.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Jeff, I know it took you a long time to type that, but the answer is short and simple: they already can. It's not legal, but neither is killing people.
You can outlaw VX, but you can't outlaw the knowledge of how to make deadly gas. Can't be done. Under the right conditions it can be as simple as creating a simply chlorine-producing reaction and letting build up.
It does no one any good to go along with the fiction that life is safe or can be made safe with enough laws. Laws are for controlling behavior and frankly don't do a great job at that.
When we say cult, are we talking about Davidians? Kabbalists? Mormons?
Depends on who gets to define the word "cult."
Same thing for explosives. You can manufacture several types from household stuff and more from farm stuff. This is no different from homebuilt zip guns and sten guns.
The genie won't fit back in the bottle.
You can outlaw VX, but you can't outlaw the knowledge of how to make deadly gas. Can't be done. Under the right conditions it can be as simple as creating a simply chlorine-producing reaction and letting build up.
It does no one any good to go along with the fiction that life is safe or can be made safe with enough laws. Laws are for controlling behavior and frankly don't do a great job at that.
When we say cult, are we talking about Davidians? Kabbalists? Mormons?
Depends on who gets to define the word "cult."
Same thing for explosives. You can manufacture several types from household stuff and more from farm stuff. This is no different from homebuilt zip guns and sten guns.
The genie won't fit back in the bottle.
Dex, I can respect your opinion, but I just don't agree with it. For better or worse, we live in this time and this place, and I think we have to accept that fact and deal with it accordingly, rather than putting on our "blinders" and pretending that we live in a world that unfortunately does not exist, just because we're not happy with the way things are. I know I won't change your mind, and you know the same, and I can live with that.
And I know I should stop now, but I can't help myself. Do you all really believe that any live body that can drag itself into a hardware store should be able to buy as many Stinger missles as they'd like??? Would it make a difference if your wives and kids were going on a flight next week? I mean, come on... I don't see bogeymen under my bed at night (well, maybe sometimes, when there's a full moon), but there really are some bad guys out there. Do you really think the USA would be a better place if every pissed off child or adult had free access to every weapons platform or explosive device that is available??? If your answer is "yes," well, there's not much I can say, other than I could not disagree more strongly.
Finally, remember that I'm probably in the 95th percentile of the population in terms of supporting gun rights (I used to think it was 98th percentile, but threads like this have made me downgrade). If some of these suggestions sound irresponsible to me, and they do, just imagine how they would be received by the majority of the public. Advocating for such extreme positions is only going to hurt us in the long run.
Okay, now I'll shut up.
And I know I should stop now, but I can't help myself. Do you all really believe that any live body that can drag itself into a hardware store should be able to buy as many Stinger missles as they'd like??? Would it make a difference if your wives and kids were going on a flight next week? I mean, come on... I don't see bogeymen under my bed at night (well, maybe sometimes, when there's a full moon), but there really are some bad guys out there. Do you really think the USA would be a better place if every pissed off child or adult had free access to every weapons platform or explosive device that is available??? If your answer is "yes," well, there's not much I can say, other than I could not disagree more strongly.
Finally, remember that I'm probably in the 95th percentile of the population in terms of supporting gun rights (I used to think it was 98th percentile, but threads like this have made me downgrade). If some of these suggestions sound irresponsible to me, and they do, just imagine how they would be received by the majority of the public. Advocating for such extreme positions is only going to hurt us in the long run.
Okay, now I'll shut up.
Such terse, pop-culture axioms from the Libertarians carry logic only so far. It's run out.
Nah. You can't just make ANY weapon that the military has perfected for killing massive amounts of people quickly and completely. That's illogical, because then terrorists wouldn't need to be seeking dirty bombs and suitcase nukes and certain bio and chemical weapons that need to be delivered with higher-tech delivery systems than what the average Poor Man's James Bond reader can create.
People, THINK! Your (Archo-Caps) tired, totally illogical and totally un-sane rhetorical tidbits lose gas as soon as they are scrutinized by any degree.
Furthermore, even if the Average Joe could make wmd that were as effective as the military's (WHICH HE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T), why should the gov't make it easy and legal to supply such weapons to him? Where's the logic?
Maybe you feel the gov't is wrong by suppressing any weapons system to any Joe Schmoe, but if the gov't feels threatened by certain transactions, why would they make it legal for defense contractors-- and make it easier for the threat-- to sell such weapons to the prospective buyers? It's not a rhetoric issue but a logical one.
Okay, I'm still waiting for my neighbor to build a Cruise missile. I'm still waiting for my other neighbor to make some Vx or sarin and put it in a homeade solid-fuel propulsion system with guided avionics.
And that would include selling wmd to anyone who has the money to buy them? Good Gawd....................:banghead:
Insert clever-sounding, pithy, non-rational, unconnected ultra-Libertarian statement here for rebuttal.
Jeff-do you see something in the Second Amendment the rest of us don't see? Not surprizing-there's a lot of gun grabbers who think it gives firearms ownership to the National Guard, even though they did not exist when the Constitution was ratified.
I do not see poison gas mentioned anywhere in the second amendment. Firearms are.
There are always the few who are going to do evil things with anything from diesel/fertilizer truck bombs to whatever.
Those we put away or put them out of their misery. The point being, the inanimate object did not do it-the person did.
Most of us do not have this mysterious power to look into a person's soul and decide if he is worthy of the rights of the individual. There are those people who would like to think they have that power. They are wrong.
It used to be in this country that you could not take a person's rights away until they had done something bad. Now, you have to prove that you are worthy of the right, and in most cases pay for the "right", at least concerning the second amendment.
If you want full safety, you cannot have a democratic republic-its as simple as that. What you will end up with is a cop in your hip pocket, telling you how to think, where to work, and what you are allowed to do. There won't be any rights.
This is irrelevant.
Wrong. It says "arms," not firearms. Therefore, any wmd can fit into this category. This makes a point I was making that one can hide behind the 2nd amendment-- on purely technical terms-- when espousing such un-sane ideas.
I'm confused by the rest of your response. It's a eloquent speech that would make a fine component of a pro-gun essay, but it means nothing when addressing my scenarios.
Do you care to directly answer my questions about anyone getting any weapon of mass destruction-- or does anyone else for that matter-- or do we still want to skirt around the topic with pithy, meaningless platitudes and moving but irrelevant prose?
Brian Dale
Member
The topic is Guns, Jeff.
Desertdog's title is "Why Did it Have to be … Guns?" That's the topic that Desertdog specified when he started this thread.
The essay that Desertdog posted is about firearms.
That's why some of us persist in returning our attention to firearms as we post in this thread.
Want a WMD thread? Fine—start one.
Tag
Member
it is getting a little toasty around here...
Jeff-I don't see your point. The Second Amendment concerns firearms. Even the Anti's will agree with what the 2nd is referring to. VX and the other gasses are not considered "arms" although they are weapons. You seem to be skyblasting rather than approaching the issue in a logical fashion.
In the vein of the theoretical arguments you bring, I could take your firearms because you might do something bad with them, take your computer, your kitchen knives, your car, and any pointed objects you might possess.
In the vein of the theoretical arguments you bring, I could take your firearms because you might do something bad with them, take your computer, your kitchen knives, your car, and any pointed objects you might possess.
Which didn't prevent you from engaging me on the tangent, nonetheless.
Wrong, again. The 2nd amendment concerns "arms." The definition of "arms" includes: implements of war, weaponry, weapons systems. I would say wmd fits into that category.
Sorry, there is no "skyblasting" on my end.
Unreal....simply unreal.
Quick Draw McGraw
Member
Platitudes? I guess I'll have to look that one up. My vocabulary has never been my strong point. Perhaps it is because your words are too big for me, but I'm a little confused on the point you're trying to make, Jeff. Perhaps you could clarify this:
I know you were responding to someone else's statement, but if this is true, why do we need to outlaw these weapons that are so hard to make? Won't their complexity make it so that only the people who have tons of money, time, and determination are able to get them? Isn't that how it is now with the black market?
I agree that some people can't be trusted with explosives, or guns, or an automobile, or scissors, but I don't see it as my place to determine who can and can't be trusted until they actually DO something. And all of the stuff we're talking about takes buttloads of money to get, like this one: (This is from Steely Dan)
Well, on one hand, that'd be great. Cause if any hardware store ever started stocking Stinger missiles (outside of some crazy post-apocalyptic mutant zombie situation) than we must be having the most unbelievable economic prosperity immaginable. I think I'd just buy myself a small plane and fly the family wherever they were going. If somebody wanted to waste a Stinger on my little prop plane than I guess it just isn't my day.
My overall point is that most of this stuff (at least everything I can think of right now) takes care of itself without the need for more laws on the books. Nobody will walk down to the corner true value and return home with a shiny new Stinger, even if it were legal.
Brian Dale
Member
I don't see much headway, so I'll just say Thank You for a nice addition to my Quotes file:
"Yes, We Have No Bananas"
and
"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."
G'night, all.
I think I'll file it between
"Yes, We Have No Bananas"
and
"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."
G'night, all.
The point is, I'm referring to weapons that would not be made by anyone other than defense contractors, and are now available on the open market, not a black one.
Let's not try to think in such conventional, traditional terms-- since we are not discussing conventional ideas. I envision a substantial supply of wmd available from defense contractors that are NOT available to the black market. Therefore, the legal means of access is the sole means of access-- the defense contractor.
Your "logic" works both ways. If any type of weapons system was SIMPLY available on the black market, Islamic terrorists would have hit us with something much greater by now, and NOT have had to rely on airliners as flying missiles on 9/11. Logic, again.
They seek such weapons, and they do not have all of the weapons they seek. This much is known. They spend all of their resources, time, well-organized efforts, and state-sponsored monies that come from the wealthiest nations on the earth-- and they still don't have all the weapons they want. They are the most-determined people in seeking such weapons, yet they can't get many of them. I think I just out-drew ya.
Not if it's fifty years from now. The Stinger is obsolete among the military but it hasn't lost any lethal efficacy among the civilian population. Such things remain relatively unchanged.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
