Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Where is the line drawn?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I assume most here are for unregulated possession of weapons, and while arguing this point with some colleagues it was naturally asked "What about nukes?" To which my response was of course not and when asked why not my response was simple, "because they're indiscriminate in what they kill and unless you're dropping one in the middle of the woods there is absolutely almost no way not to kill innocent by standers." This is in contrast to say a fully automatic assault rifle which I could be much more discriminate with when targeting.

    Where do you think the line is drawn between legal and illegal weaponry if at all?

  2. #2
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Well my idea on OC is to be able to carry a personal weapon i.e. handgun for protection. When someone brings up things like nukes and such they are just wanting to argue not debate. I would just smile at them and say when you get one let me know. I would like to see it. Then walk away. Never argue with a fool. You will only lose.

    OC means to be responsible and have common sense. If they don't know where to draw the line then they may want to reconsider OC. It may not be for them. Some people you just can't debate. They have their minds made up and will not change.

    Would I like to have my Sub 2000 with me if something went down? Sure. But it would draw unwanted attention and a hassle to carry around since you can't put an assault weapon in a holster. I am very comfortable with my sidearm. A Ruger P89dc. It will do the job should I ever need it. Which I pray never happens.

    Besides, how do you OC a nuke? Do they even make a holster that big? IWB, OWB, Shoulder rig maybe? I got it. Ankle holster.



    ABNinfantryman wrote:
    I assume most here are for unregulated possession of weapons, and while arguing this point with some colleagues it was naturally asked "What about nukes?" To which my response was of course not and when asked why not my response was simple, "because they're indiscriminate in what they kill and unless you're dropping one in the middle of the woods there is absolutely almost no way not to kill innocent by standers." This is in contrast to say a fully automatic assault rifle which I could be much more discriminate with when targeting.

    Where do you think the line is drawn between legal and illegal weaponry if at all?
    Kentucky Open Carry Group
    http://opencarry.niceboards.org/

    We all speak of liberty and freedom like we are the only ones that know the truth and the right path. But if we expect everyone to accept and follow our path and to accept our truth and want to force it upon them then that is no longer liberty or freedom. It is slavery. I believe in liberty for all. Regardless of their political views, religion, race, sex, etc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I was refering more to general ownership, but carry works too. Personally I would feel safe and confident carrying an M4 strapped to my chest because of my military training, though I wouldn't in today's climate just to avoid the cop stops and the :what:

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    What exactly is the objection to "keeping and bearing" strategic thermonuclear weapons?

    Any collector of military arms ought to have the opportunity to complete their collection. Merely possessing them does not mean you are going to use them. The Founding Fathers believed that there was nothing to prevent a private citizen from possessing a cannon, and even today (albeit with tax stamps and other restrictions) one can still do so.

    The "safety" argument always gets me to ranting and raving. If I have not gone off on a rampage with the stockpile of stuff in my safe, what makes you think I'd go off on a rampage just because now I've got a strategic thermonuclear warhead under my bed?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Indeed, skidmark. It's not like the politicians and bureaucrats are somehow more trustworthy and level headed than ordinary people. You have read the "only ones" file at WaronGuns, haven't you? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...=&gs_rfai=

    Just remember who it was that used nuclear bombs against human beings. Talk about indiscriminate slaughter of innocents...
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.

    Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.

    I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I understand where you are coming from. Collecting aside I see no need for anything more than an assualt weapon. But that is just for myself. What someone else might want may be different.

    I guess when it comes to drawing the line the first question to ask is.Who gets to do the line drawing and why them and if everyone will be ok with it? Without that answered first it is a moot issue as to who can have what. Ask them that next time they bring up drawing the line.



    ABNinfantryman wrote:
    I was refering more to general ownership, but carry works too. Personally I would feel safe and confident carrying an M4 strapped to my chest because of my military training, though I wouldn't in today's climate just to avoid the cop stops and the :what:
    Kentucky Open Carry Group
    http://opencarry.niceboards.org/

    We all speak of liberty and freedom like we are the only ones that know the truth and the right path. But if we expect everyone to accept and follow our path and to accept our truth and want to force it upon them then that is no longer liberty or freedom. It is slavery. I believe in liberty for all. Regardless of their political views, religion, race, sex, etc.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Well, the main problem with having explosives I would think would be the proper storage. How many people do you know that you feel could store explosives that would be safe for those around them even in the face of a catastrophic event, such as a fire?



    -Gruu

  9. #9
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.

    Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.

    I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test.
    You are very mistaken. The founders very much intended for "the people" to have full access to every single weapon known - ESPECIALLY those used by the "military."

    Look at this: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20010801.htm
    On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia' by Vin Suprynowicz
    Is it appropriate for the federal government to own nuclear weapons? That is to say, has any federal official in the military chain of command -- from Harry Truman on down -- ever been put on trial for merely having control over nuclear weapons?
    No.
    Therefore, shall we surmise the federal government and its agents have some proper and duly delegated right, power, or authority to possess such things?
    If so, where did it or they get that right, power, or authority?
    Fortunately, under our system of government, we know what the answer must be: The government can acquire no right, power or authority except those which are delegated to it by the people.
    Can you delegate a right, power or authority which you do not already possess?
    No.
    Therefore: The American people, both individually and as a group, have the right, power and authority to own nuclear weapons. No other condition can apply, unless you submit that we now live under a form of government where all rights and powers start with the GOVERNMENT MASTERS, who then bestow upon us (their peasants and slaves) only those lesser and included rights which our masters wish US to have.





    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    When you show me that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

    Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    When you show me that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

    Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.
    What does it mean to you when, in the late Eighteenth Century, Captain So-and-so raised a company? Do you think that he filed a DOD-XYZ form for weapons and sat back and waited for the taxpayer to deliver? Or did he order a two-pounder from the local foundry, McDonalds?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

    Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    eye95
    When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

    Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.
    You obviously didn't read the article - or the Constitution. Your question was answered.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    We have the right to keep and bear arms to defend against threats both foreign and domestic. That means the US government. The only way to do that successfully, is with private ownership of nuclear weapons.

    When someone says what about nukes? The answer is yes, we do have the right, but those rights have been infringed, just like the requirement of a permit.

    BTW, the average joe lacks the knowledge and finances to own and operate a nuclear weapon. Those who do, like machine gun owners, would not use them.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    eye95
    When you [you being the person to whom I replied, MamaLiberty] show me [not ask silly questions] that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannons, I will stand corrected.

    Where does the power for the government to own nukes come from? The Constitution gives the government the authority to raise and equip an army.
    You obviously didn't read the article - or the Constitution. Your question was answered.
    That reply was not intended for you. I was pointing out to someone else that I was asking you and not him.

    Anyway, I don't see anywhere in that article where it says that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannon. Did I miss it?

  16. #16
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    That reply was not intended for you. I was pointing out to someone else that I was asking you and not him.

    Anyway, I don't see anywhere in that article where it says that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannon. Did I miss it?
    Are you being intentionally dense, or can I assume you didn't really read the article? The issue is not cannons. The issue is that no "government" has the authority to decide what weapons or anything else people may own or carry.

    The only "authority" any government has is what is granted it by individuals. You may grant it the privilege of determining what you do and own, but you cannot authorize anyone to exercise that control over me or anyone else. Not you alone, nor 300 million of you.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    That reply was not intended for you. I was pointing out to someone else that I was asking you and not him.

    Anyway, I don't see anywhere in that article where it says that the Founders had no problem with people individually owning their own cannon. Did I miss it?
    Are you being intentionally dense, or can I assume you didn't really read the article? The issue is not cannons. The issue is that no "government" has the authority to decide what weapons or anything else people may own or carry.

    The only "authority" any government has is what is granted it by individuals. You may grant it the privilege of determining what you do and own, but you cannot authorize anyone to exercise that control over me or anyone else. Not you alone, nor 300 million of you.
    Ah, the personal insult. I will endeavor to make my point one more time and then move one. I don't debate with people who make discussions personal. It is an indication that they either have no rhetorical leg to stand on or don't have the rhetorical wherewithal to rationally make their points.

    If there were no line drawn, then the Founders would have had no problem with individuals owning their own personal cannon. Since you have ducked that question so deftly, I assume you cannot answer it. So, I will continue to hold the premise that when the 2A was written, the authors were referring to arms that people typically used in daily life for protection and hunting which could also be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military weapon.

    Feel free to post another personal insult. I won't respond.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    The main threat that needs to be protected against was government. (domestic or foreign) So theoretically, citizens should be able to own anything they can afford.

    Most WMD's are so expensive and complex to build, deploy, store, recycle/dispose of, that a common person couldn't afford it. Of course seeing the cost, people like George Soros and Bill Gates would be the only ones that could afford them. :-( (say goodbye republican headquarters and Apple)

    Tactical nuclear weapons are a great force-multiplier for small militias!!! :-)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Seriously, though... think about it this way, is not the 2nd Amendment written to allow the citizen to protect themselves not only from the criminal but also from the government? Given that the 2nd Amendment also protects the right of the citizen to protect themselves from the government, would it not be reasonable to assume the right to arm oneself to the same level as that government would also not be protected?
    No, that does not necessarily follow. Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors. The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent.* At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies.* Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation.* In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket.* Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun.* Semi-automatic capability is reasonable.* Automatic capability is understandably arguable.
    Virtually every major army equips its soldiers with fully automatic weapons as standard issue. The AK47 and M16 are the equivalent of the musket. Banning them is like the founders of this country banning flint locks and only allowing people to use match locks. Even regular people in many parts of the third world commonly use their AK47 as their general purpose weapon. It is the modern rifle. The only reason it isn't common here is because they have been heavily regulated since the 1930's and banned if made after 1986. I think the assault rifle is MOST CLEARLY the type of weapon that we SHOULD have. If you were equipping the militia to fight a war, would you send them to battle with arms inferior to that of everyone else? I cannot think of a logical reason to ban fully-automatic weapons other than to make sure that the populace is not as capable at fighting.

  21. #21
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    No, that does not necessarily follow.* Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors.* The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.
    Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I said that automatic was arguable because it was beside the point I was trying to make. I was hoping to avoid the whole semiautomatic/automatic thing because I thought it would be a distraction.

    Possibly, the question is best discussed in a thread that asks, "If you think there is a limit to the capabilities of 2A-protected weapons, should that limit allow automatic weapons?" I would join that discussion, but will deliberately avoid that specific question here.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    A difference that makes no difference. Over and out.



  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    No, that does not necessarily follow. Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors. The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.
    Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.
    The 2A clearly protects the right to own and carry guns, so the point you are making is outside the scope of reality and not worth considering. The question before us is what, in addition to guns, does the 2A mean by the word "arms"?

    I am contending that "arms" means the typical weapon that one would have for hunting and self-defense while still being useful as a personal military weapon. If the Founders were around today, and specifically asked, I suspect they'd say typical hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I think they'd all agree that we should carry semiautomatics. I think there'd be a heated discussion on automatics. I think there'd be a consensus against artillery, bombs, and the like. They'd likely want those in an armory under the control of the militia.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Anyone see that drive-by bilging?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •