Where do we draw the line?

Grapeshot said:

When the ah sn!t happens, how will you unring the bell?

Click to expand...

How is that a relevant question when considering private vs .gov ownership? .gov can unring the bell? Hardly, but if .gov has the ah sn!t, you can bet the victims' families will be ah sn!t outa luck for recourse.

utbagpiper said:

Like Rothbard?

Some people exercise a willful ignorance of liberty and freedom when they follow an interpretation of such that is entirely likely to lead to the end of human life on the planet. "Negligent discharges" of nukes might well have a tendency to very quickly escalate to the point of destroying all semblance of modern living if not life itself. "NDs" of biologicals might not even require anyone else to escalate, but could run through the population with disastrous results.

"Liberty and freedom" cannot, logically, include the real risk of ending life as we know it.

Click to expand...

Shakes head... another red flag Just say "no" to the circle!!

georg jetson said:

But, but, now someone gets to determine the definition of "WMD". A machine gun could easily fit the description.

Click to expand...

Actually, we do get to decide what a WMD is. Far better to decide that and maybe even get it wrong regarding a fighter jet or rocket launcher than to not decide it, slavishly follow someone's idea of "freedom" and never get to decide anything again.

If a machine gun is a WMD, we've got every police force in the nation packing WMDs around in public everyday. I don't think any sensible man is going to buy that.

By Rothbard's definition, even a machine gun can be directed only at those actually posing a threat.

This incessant fear that "someone gets to decide" something really needs to go.

We are constitutional republic. We get to decide lots of stuff all the time and we make laws regarding what we decide. "Someone gets to decide" that 8 year olds are too young to consent to sex with 40 year old men. And it isn't the 8 year olds or the 40 year old perverts claiming some "right". "Someone gets to decide" that we are going to drive on the right side of the road and that red means stop, even if there isn't cross traffic readily observed. "Someone gets to decide" where the line is between merely impolite, and actionable slander or libel.

And yes, "someone (or rather a lot of someones) gets to decide" where the line is between weapons suitable for personal defense or even militia use and WMDs that we might well be better off if they didn't exist at all, but since they do, we will be keeping them out of private hands and away from as many nations as we can.

The benefit of our imperfect, constitutional republic, is that we all pretty well understand how the decision process works. We've got a nice history here. It isn't just a theory and certainly not one that leads to communism nor to someone getting to keep nukes, sarin or mustard gas, or small pox in his basement.

Charles

georg jetson said:

Shakes head... another red flag Just say "no" to the circle!!

Click to expand...

That gives us exactly zero to consider. Bumper sticker "logic" is not a counter here kids.

georg jetson said:

But, but, now someone gets to determine the definition of "WMD". A machine gun could easily fit the description.

Click to expand...

I would hold that the machine gun fitting the description of a WMD misses the mark.

That a machine gun can be used aggressively is exactly Rothbard's point about the bow and arrow.

The point Rothbard makes against nukes and other WMDs is that they cannot be pinpointed to hit only an aggressor.

On the battlefield, a machine gun pointed in the right direction hits only the aggressors.

In a shopping mall, not so much.

The question is less whether the weapon is a WMD than whether it can be pinpointed at only the aggressor. For machine guns, it would depend on the scene. I kinda doubt anybody on this forum would open up defensively with "spray and pray" in a crowded movie theater with even a semi-auto 9mm if there was any chance of hitting an innocent.



PS: I could tell by the "but, but" that you were not arguing with me. So, I'm not attacking your post; just rebutting the idea for new readers.

Freedom1Man said:

How do you call back a bullet, an arrow, a bomb, a car with bad brakes, sperm, etc? When the $#!t hits the fan it does not matter. Once the bell tolls it is too late.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for the bell tolls for you. (Not a personal reference)

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with John Donne and Ernest Hemingway, but think the reference is misapplied here. It is not whether we would feel the loss of a bit of mankind, but rather how significant, how massive the loss would be.

Grapeshot said:

When the ah sn!t happens, how will you unring the bell?

Click to expand...

Hallmark?

Grapeshot said:

I'm very familiar with John Donne and Ernest Hemingway, but think the reference is misapplied here. It is not whether we would feel the loss of a bit of mankind, but rather how significant, how massive the loss would be.

Click to expand...

So? We have allowed GMOs loose on the field, the development of biological weapons, the use of chemical weapons, drones, aerial spraying of various chemicals, etc. I hear a whole choir of bells ringing, why would you worry about me setting off a nuke, when there are other things killing more than me setting off a nuke in down town L.A. could ever hope to accomplish?

Why would you argue against private ownership of a nuke? Two publicly owned nukes were used on a civilian population already, the ones dropping it did not have to pay for it. Do you waste ammo when you pay for it yourself?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

georg jetson said:

+1

Very logically honest argument. It's the only logical conclusion to the idea that one man's rights do not originate from another man/men.

Click to expand...

Too coincidental.

At the beginning of The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard quotes:

"As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e., with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation..." Rev. Elisha Williams, 1744

Citizen said:

I would hold that the machine gun fitting the description of a WMD misses the mark.

That a machine gun can be used aggressively is exactly Rothbard's point about the bow and arrow.

The point Rothbard makes against nukes and other WMDs is that they cannot be pinpointed to hit only an aggressor.

On the battlefield, a machine gun pointed in the right direction hits only the aggressors.

In a shopping mall, not so much.

The question is less whether the weapon is a WMD than whether it can be pinpointed at only the aggressor. For machine guns, it would depend on the scene. I kinda doubt anybody on this forum would open up defensively with "spray and pray" in a crowded movie theater with even a semi-auto 9mm if there was any chance of hitting an innocent.



PS: I could tell by the "but, but" that you were not arguing with me. So, I'm not attacking your post; just rebutting the idea for new readers.

Click to expand...

Well, I was arguing with you a bit, in a friendly way.

To further the argument a bit, I was trying to think of a way even a small nuke may be used in a discriminate way. Considering the lasting radiation effects, I couldn't. I guess I'm done arguing.

georg jetson said:

Well, I was arguing with you a bit, in a friendly way.

To further the argument a bit, I was trying to think of a way even a small nuke may be used in a discriminate way. Considering the lasting radiation effects, I couldn't. I guess I'm done arguing.

Click to expand...

NO! I said I could tell you were not arguing with me! You were not, and that's that!

utbagpiper said:

It is a legitimate technique only when such reduction is reasonable.

Click to expand...

Incorrect (technically, just to put a little twist on the dagger) and misleading. What do you think absurdum means, dude? You think it means "reasonable"?

Also, what do you think is the difference between being " technically" and "materially" correct?

utbagpiper said:

Nice theory. But I'm not buying it and neither will the electorate.

We do not advance nor protect, but damage our credibility on RKBA by claiming a "right" to own WMDs. The argument goes the other way too. "So if I recognize your right to own a handgun or even a scary looking rifle for self defense, I have to accept a right for you to keep a nuke in your basement?"

The result of that thought process for 99.9%+ of voters is, "Then to heck with any 'right' to own arms." Nobody is going to sign up for their crazy neighbor to keep a nuke in his basement. An ND from a gun is most often a personal matter. An ND from a nuke?

Time to deal with both physical and political/social realities.

Charles

Click to expand...

This post can basically be summarized as "better to lie and get your way than tell the truth and not"

If the theory is solid but you want to hide it under the rug, fine, whatever dude.

If the theory isn't solid then make a logical argument showing a flaw.

But don't reduce yourself to lying just to desperately convince other people to let you keep your guns...

Citizen said:

NO! I said I could tell you were not arguing with me! You were not, and that's that!

Click to expand...

...and let that be a lesson to me.

Bagpiper, I do not care that you're anti-anarchist (a fun double negative of sorts, essentially meaning pro-ruler). You constantly try to speak for other members. You've tried to speak for at least two other members in this very thread, and in the case of speaking for me you grossly misrepresented my views and thoughts. I was not even arguing one position over another! Yet you jump in and start trying to speak for me, then attack a position I never held. I think that is my primary complaint with you.

Citizen said:

Too coincidental.

At the beginning of The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard quotes:

"As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e., with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation..." Rev. Elisha Williams, 1744

Click to expand...

Hey, Stealthy, SVG, Georg,

Did you guys notice the power in that Elisha Williams quote? I didn't when I first read it. It only sank in this evening.

Citizen said:

...

The question is less whether the weapon is a WMD than whether it can be pinpointed at only the aggressor. For machine guns, it would depend on the scene. I kinda doubt anybody on this forum would open up defensively with "spray and pray" in a crowded movie theater with even a semi-auto 9mm if there was any chance of hitting an innocent. ...

Click to expand...

For each rule is there a exception? Or, are we "arguing" definitions.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

Could the NYPD be a wmd? Sometimes...maybe?

Nukes, nope not a 2A thing. Tell the liberal/anti-gunner it is a waste of your time to argue a point when his views will not change to a more liberty centric position. If it is a legitimate question from a well meaning citizen in search of clarity and understanding, tell him to concentrate on being able to carry the pistol of his choice, OC or CC, anywhere he has a right to be without state permission or interference. Then tell him, after we get the pistol thing taken care of, we will work to get him a suitcase nuke to place on his mantle piece.

OC for ME said:

For each rule is there a exception? Or, are we "arguing" definitions.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/Could the NYPD be a wmd? Sometimes...maybe?Nukes, nope not a 2A thing. Tell the liberal/anti-gunner it is a waste of your time to argue a point when his views will not change to a more liberty centric position. If it is a legitimate question from a well meaning citizen in search of clarity and understanding, tell him to concentrate on being able to carry the pistol of his choice, OC or CC, anywhere he has a right to be without state permission or interference. Then tell him, after we get the pistol thing taken care of, we will work to get him a suitcase nuke to place on his mantle piece.

Click to expand...

Considering the backdrop of innocents...you may have a point.

Citizen said:

Hey, Stealthy, SVG, Georg, Did you guys notice the power in that Elisha Williams quote? I didn't when I first read it. It only sank in this evening.

Click to expand...

It is very intriguing and powerful. In essence a description of men in their natural state as individuals in a society.We don't need state apparatus to decide having intercourse with an 8 year old is wrong. Its in our nature to preserve others and ourselves.

sudden valley gunner said:

It is very intriguing and powerful. In essence a description of men in their natural state as individuals in a society.We don't need state apparatus to decide having intercourse with an 8 year old is wrong. Its in our nature to preserve others and ourselves.

Click to expand...

Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp

Anyway, there is a call in Yemen that may be gaining momentum that the state outlaw this barbaric societal norm.

The line is drawn anew...sometimes...for good or bad.