• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How come?

Thorgasm said:
How come indiviual people can't have a nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...

Much the same reason that hand grenades are not made with a 300 yard kill radius. WMDs, unlike scary black rifles, are not arms protected by the 2A or commonly carried by militia members.

I assume that your point is that there is a limit to the "killing power" of arms protected by the 2A and you wish to add things that fire a single lethal projectile when you pull the trigger to that list if they can hold more than N such projectiles without requiring a brief "time out" to reload.
 
Last edited:
Luftwaffe said:
I dont know what libertarian means to the rest of the world but in america you would not be a libertarian. Not even ****ing close.
Click to expand...

I did the political compass test & got Libertarian-Left. Twice. Maybe I'm not always a Libertarian ? Sorry ?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Much the same reason that hand grenades are not made with 300 yard kill ranges. WMDs, unlike scary black rifles, are not arms protected by the 2A or commonly carried by militia members.

I assume that your point is that there is a limit to the "killing power" of arms protected by the 2A and you wish to add things that fire a single lethal projectile when you pull the trigger to that list if they can hold more than N such projectiles without requiring a brief "time out" to reload.
Click to expand...

You, and others, don't have to "assume" anything.

There obviously is a limit to the lethality of weapons owned by individuals. I started with an extreme because that is the generally agreed upon as too lethal for private ownership. I just wonder where people draw the line. How big of massacres are we willing to accept?

It's funny that this issue creates so much dishonesty on both sides. One side thinks that black rifles are "assault rifles" and the other side think that a background check means the Gestapo will kick down your doors and take all of your guns, knives, and fishing rods.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.
 
Thorgasm said:
How come indiviual people can't have a nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...

The short answer is because the laws say so. The nuclear weapon in the founders time was the cannon, and a good many of the founders owned cannons

Like sidearms and pressure cooker bombs, if the bad guys want them, they will have them regardless of the law. They possibly already have them.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I dont know what libertarian means to the rest of the world but in america you would not be a libertarian. Not even ****ing close.
Click to expand...

Do you want your chicken inspected?
 
Cisero said:
Contrary to what people are saying, I don't think this is a silly question. I have actualy argued with a dude who genuinely thought that we the people should have access to the same weapons as the government.
You know, in case the government decides to attack us.

The answer is obvious, nuclear weapon = too lethal for any individual to use. Any weapon that is designed to kill more than one person at a time should be illegal.
Click to expand...

You inspired a new thread. Congrats :D
I think for most people the "line" is a weapon that you use to defend yourself against one attacker on your home. This is "most of us".
There is, of course, those who believe in keeping an arsenal for the end of the world be it the Government, alien invasion, bath salt zombies, etc. But most of them will stick to a gun arsenal and not try to stock up tanks (I work for someone who owns tanks but its more for museum reasons than to gear up for the end of the world...or so I think?)
 
Cisero said:
Contrary to what people are saying, I don't think this is a silly question. I have actualy argued with a dude who genuinely thought that we the people should have access to the same weapons as the government.
You know, in case the government decides to attack us.

The answer is obvious, nuclear weapon = too lethal for any individual to use. Any weapon that is designed to kill more than one person at a time should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Define "at a time". Is that per minute, per hour or per trigger pull? ;)
 
Thorgasm said:
You do realize I stated my purpose already in this thread? Right?

Do you care to address that?
Click to expand...

The OP was 100% pure thread bait.

Now then, would YOU care to address the rest of my post or does it's logic so thoroughly destroy your sad attempt at a false comparison that you're too embarrassed to do so...
 
Thorgasm said:
How come indiviual people can't have a nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it.

First off you would have to be of billionaire status to afford nuclear weapons. It is not like a pistol that you can put in your closet. Maintenance alone is millions of dollars.

My scenario would be a very rich person with an income of several billion a year. He buys a country such as Mongolia that is worth a couple billion dollars total. Say he makes a deal with the people paying them 3 or 4 times their net worth and allows them to stay with the understanding he now owns the country. This country now becomes his home and base of operation and the people are much better off because of the influx of money and jobs. Everyone wins and everyone is happy. Unfortunately he is now vulnerable as he is not a part of any particular country. He also doesn't wish to be beholding to any country for protection. He just wants to be left alone to conduct his business away from the corruption of the governments of other countries.

Why would he not be allowed to build or purchase nuclear weapons to detour an aggressive country from taking what he owns?
 
faithful_servant said:
The OP was 100% pure thread bait.

Now then, would YOU care to address the rest of my post or does it's logic so thoroughly destroy your sad attempt at a false comparison that you're too embarrassed to do so...
Click to expand...

I don't fear straw men.

How lethal is too lethal?

How large of massacres are you willing to accept?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I don't have a problem with it.

First off you would have to be of billionaire status to afford nuclear weapons. It is not like a pistol that you can put in your closet. Maintenance alone is millions of dollars.

My scenario would be a very rich person with an income of several billion a year. He buys a country such as Mongolia that is worth a couple billion dollars total. Say he makes a deal with the people paying them 3 or 4 times their net worth and allows them to stay with the understanding he now owns the country. This country now becomes his home and base of operation and the people are much better off because of the influx of money and jobs. Everyone wins and everyone is happy. Unfortunately he is now vulnerable as he is not a part of any particular country. He also doesn't wish to be beholding to any country for protection. He just wants to be left alone to conduct his business away from the corruption of the governments of other countries.

Why would he not be allowed to build or purchase nuclear weapons to detour an aggressive country from taking what he owns?
Click to expand...

I will give you an A for creativity.

Do you support every country having nukes?
 
Thorgasm said:
You, and others, don't have to "assume" anything.

There obviously is a limit to the lethality of weapons owned by individuals. I started with an extreme because that is the generally agreed upon as too lethal for private ownership. I just wonder where people draw the line. How big of massacres are we willing to accept?

It's funny that this issue creates so much dishonesty on both sides. One side thinks that black rifles are "assault rifles" and the other side think that a background check means the Gestapo will kick down your doors and take all of your guns, knives, and fishing rods.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Why not address what you think a reasonable "lethality limit" should be? I see few that see much similarity between ICBMs and a semi-auto pistol or rifle that has a 15 or 30 round capacity magazine. The idea that a pistol equipped with a 15 round magazine, as are commonly carried by police, was designed to kill 15 people is simply silly. That is much like saying that a pickup truck was designed to be driven at 100 mph everywhere.
 
Thorgasm said:
You, and others, don't have to "assume" anything.

There obviously is a limit to the lethality of weapons owned by individuals. I started with an extreme because that is the generally agreed upon as too lethal for private ownership. I just wonder where people draw the line. How big of massacres are we willing to accept?

It's funny that this issue creates so much dishonesty on both sides. One side thinks that black rifles are "assault rifles" and the other side think that a background check means the Gestapo will kick down your doors and take all of your guns, knives, and fishing rods.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...

What do you think the chances are of someone actually owing a nuclear weapon? What do you think the chances are someone would actually sell them?
 
Thorgasm said:
You, and others, don't have to "assume" anything.

There obviously is a limit to the lethality of weapons owned by individuals. I started with an extreme because that is the generally agreed upon as too lethal for private ownership. I just wonder where people draw the line. How big of massacres are we willing to accept?

It's funny that this issue creates so much dishonesty on both sides. One side thinks that black rifles are "assault rifles" and the other side think that a background check means the Gestapo will kick down your doors and take all of your guns, knives, and fishing rods.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...

The problem lies with you and your ilk's definition of "responsible gun ownership".

So, in utopian liberal lala land, what "arms" should individuals be "allowed" to keep and bear? .
 
humbolt said:
I dunno. I'm fussy about exactly who inspects my chicken.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that Congress just voted to eliminate COOL regulations?
 
Thorgasm said:
I will give you an A for creativity.

Do you support every country having nukes?
Click to expand...

Where does the US get off telling other countries they can't have nuclear weapons?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not address what you think a reasonable "lethality limit" should be? I see few that see much similarity between ICBMs and a semi-auto pistol or rifle that has a 15 or 30 round capacity magazine. The idea that a pistol equipped with a 15 round magazine, as are commonly carried by police, was designed to kill 15 people is simply silly. That is much like saying that a pickup truck was designed to be driven at 100 mph everywhere.
Click to expand...

I think the 15 round magazine is sufficient. I support an ammunition/gun tax to provide for mental health care and a victims' family benefit fund.

Speaking of vehicles, if we were serious about road safety every car would have a breathalyzer ignition and speed governors.
 
Henrin said:
Where does the US get off telling other countries they can't have nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

Because we have enough nukes I suspect. Spending as much money as the next 20+ countries combined apparently gives us that right.
 
Thorgasm said:
Because we have enough nukes I suspect. Spending as much money as the next 20+ countries combined apparently gives us that right.
Click to expand...

So there is no justifiable reason the US tells other countries what weapons they may or may not have.
 
Thorgasm said:
I just wonder where people draw the line on private ownership of lethal weapons.
Click to expand...

I draw it at the 2nd Amendment.

The 2A restricts the government from infringing on the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms.

It says nothing about ordinance or artillery so there is no constitutional check on the government restricting the citizen's right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or self propelled howitzers, or attack helicopters.
 
Henrin said:
What do you think the chances are of someone actually owing a nuclear weapon? What do you think the chances are someone would actually sell them?
Click to expand...

We have spent trillions of dollars under the guise that this could very well happen.
 
soot said:
I draw it at the 2nd Amendment.

The 2A restricts the government from infringing on the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms.

It says nothing about ordinance or artillery so there is no constitutional check on the government restricting the citizen's right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or self propelled howitzers, or attack helicopters.
Click to expand...

So you want to limit it to muskets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom