Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

[ataraxia]

I didn't say which side I was on. To me, it's moot.

You said you didn't think you had any disagreements. I bet there are more than a few. These are all just personal opinions.

 

[zsu2357]

And so would you like to go back to those times, despite the changes in technology?

If all we still had was 18th century firearms technology, there would be no debate here. What has created the problems and been a game changer has been the new technology. It has become clear that some lines have to be drawn for sanity's sake.

There is a big difference between these two things. Fundamentally different. One I wouldn't mind seeing on the street. The other? Not so commonsense, in fact quite disturbing, to see on the street.

View attachment 67224931View attachment 67224932

Up until 1934 which is 20th century. If I saw the "other" on the street I'd pick it up and take it home. Yeah a big difference in the two such as why would I want a muzzle loader over what looks like a M-134.

 

[Rucker61]

And you seem to be OK with that. Why?

Don't let the fact that I haven't addressed the issue imply that I don't have a position. There's not a lawful use for handgun caliber armor piercing rounds. Getting shot be a regular handgun or any rifle can be lethal. That's said, it was a knee jerk reaction and I'm not even sure how effective so called armor piercing rounds for handguns are, given the relatively low velocities.

Are you OK with lifting the current restrictions on full autos?

Yes.

 

[TurtleDude]

It looks like in issuing his opinion in the Heller case, Scalia left it kinda open:



But whatever it is, it's clear that he did not think it was "natural" to have no absolutely prohibitions or regulations on it whatsoever.



No. Please explain what that is. Never heard of it.

you are arguing supreme court case law and you don't know what Dicta is?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dicta

 

[TurtleDude]

Leave it free and I will decide what I want to buy and which I will develop expertise in.

I may want the freedom to go to the grocery store like this:

View attachment 67224926

Who are you to ask me questions about it? This is what is my natural rights under the Constitution, right?

I bet the checkout line I stand in is going to move extra fast, huh? :lol:

go for it.

 

[ataraxia]

you are arguing supreme court case law and you don't know what Dicta is?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dicta

I see. Thank you for the education. So I assume you disagree with Justice Scalia's "dictum" in Heller that

"The right to bear arms has limits... Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
-Antonin Scalia

 

[ataraxia]

Don't let the fact that I haven't addressed the issue imply that I don't have a position. There's not a lawful use for handgun caliber armor piercing rounds.

I don't see any less lawful use for those than for seamiautomatic rifles with bump stocks. Are you saying militia members can't carry handgun caliber armor piercing rounds? If so, then who are you to restrict their use?

 

[TurtleDude]

I see. Thank you for the education. So I assume you disagree with Justice Scalia's "dictum" in Heller that

no, I disagree with what gun banners try to prove with that

there is no doubt that state restrictions on where you can fire a weapon are legitimate and though I believe all federal gun control is improper, I know the ban on felons owning firearms based on the commerce clause is going to be around for decades

 

[Rucker61]

I see. Thank you for the education. So I assume you disagree with Justice Scalia's "dictum" in Heller that

Which is defined by Miller, Heller and Caetano that the 2nd Amendment protected "all bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "useful for a militia". Why do you always leave this part out?

 

[Rucker61]

I don't see any less lawful use for those than for seamiautomatic rifles with bump stocks.

When we see sufficient bad guys wearing body armor, that lack of a lawful use may change. Granted, unless we ban all rifles, banning "armor piercing rounds" is basically an exercise in emotion. Thousands of semi-automatic rifles with bump fire stocks have been used lawfully in target shooting, turning money into noise.

Are you saying militia members can't carry handgun caliber armor piercing rounds? If so, then who are you to restrict their use?

I said I didn't see a lawful use for them; it doesn't meant that I said to ban them. The ban is useless in protecting LEOs, as their body armor only covers a portion of their anatomy. If the militia is mustered to combat an enemy, it's possible that the enemy may wear body armor as standard equipment. In any case, no one would suggest using a handgun in combat when every militia member will have a rifle. AP rounds for pistols basically have no real military use.

 

[ataraxia]

Which is defined by Miller, Heller and Caetano that the 2nd Amendment protected "all bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "useful for a militia". Why do you always leave this part out?

Because I am not sure why nukes are not necessary for a proper militia. A militia, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is to have the power to be a deterrent against federal government tyranny. You are going to need more than just what a foot soldier can carry to do that properly.

 

[ataraxia]

When we see sufficient bad guys wearing body armor, that lack of a lawful use may change. Granted, unless we ban all rifles, banning "armor piercing rounds" is basically an exercise in emotion. Thousands of semi-automatic rifles with bump fire stocks have been used lawfully in target shooting, turning money into noise.


I said I didn't see a lawful use for them; it doesn't meant that I said to ban them. The ban is useless in protecting LEOs, as their body armor only covers a portion of their anatomy. If the militia is mustered to combat an enemy, it's possible that the enemy may wear body armor as standard equipment. In any case, no one would suggest using a handgun in combat when every militia member will have a rifle. AP rounds for pistols basically have no real military use.

But you are excluding a lot of weapons that CAN have real military use by a militia. It makes no sense. Either you want weapons for military use or you don't. Where you are drawing the line seems very strange. You seem to be OK with a portable missile launcher, but tell me I can't have artillery. The former can probably do more damage.

 

[Rucker61]

Because I am not sure why nukes are not necessary for a proper militia. A militia, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is to have the power to be a deterrent against federal government tyranny. You are going to need more than just what a foot soldier can carry to do that properly.

I don't believe it's anyone's strategy to explode a nuke on their own soil, so there may not be a need for a nuke. You should write the DOD for clarification.

 

[Rucker61]

But you are excluding a lot of weapons that CAN have real military use by a militia. It makes no sense. Either you want weapons for military use or you don't. Where you are drawing the line seems very strange. You seem to be OK with a portable missile launcher, but tell me I can't have artillery. The former can probably do more damage.

Did I say that you couldn't have artillery? I'm not excluding anything - SCOTUS did in Miller, Heller, and Caetano. It has to be "of use to a militia" AND a "bearable arm".

 

[ataraxia]

I don't believe it's anyone's strategy to explode a nuke on their own soil, so there may not be a need for a nuke. You should write the DOD for clarification.

You want me to ask the government for clarification on what arms I can bear? Don't make decisions on what strategy I choose to pursue with my rights.

If one of the purposes of a private militia is to deter potential government tyranny, then sometimes you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette. Sometimes that may mean a nuke or two on your own soil. Why arbitrarily make restrictions on my freedom?

 

[ataraxia]

Did I say that you couldn't have artillery? I'm not excluding anything - SCOTUS did in Miller, Heller, and Caetano. It has to be "of use to a militia" AND a "bearable arm".

So if it wasn't for Miller, Heller, and Caetano, you would be OK with private artillery too?

So then why stop there? What's wrong with the nukes? They can certainly be more bearable than artillery, and of use to a substantive militia that would be taken seriously.

 

[Rucker61]

So if it wasn't for Miller, Heller, and Caetano, you would be OK with private artillery too?

So then why stop there? What's wrong with the nukes? They can certainly be more bearable than artillery, and of use to a substantive militia that would be taken seriously.

View attachment 67224975

NFA 1934 limits destructive devices, as do local ordnances on explosives. Nukes are of no use to a militia, as the militia would only be fighting on US soil where we would not use them. You can continue to pursue this frankly ridiculous and overwrought discussion path or you can actually bring it back to what to do NOW, with the laws and SCOTUS decisions we have NOW.

You can still own black powder cannons, and one or two loaded with grapeshot or cannister fired out the back of a van or truck would cause devastating casualties on a crowd.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I close friend of mine recently tried to argue that "if you can own a gun you can own a nuke" fallacy (and I forgive him because it's simply who he is - tree-huggin' hippy after all:2razz, now I'm just trying to figure out how to convert the OP into a few verbal sentences...

 

[ataraxia]

NFA 1934 limits destructive devices, as do local ordnances on explosives. Nukes are of no use to a militia, as the militia would only be fighting on US soil where we would not use them. You can continue to pursue this frankly ridiculous and overwrought discussion path or you can actually bring it back to what to do NOW, with the laws and SCOTUS decisions we have NOW.

You can still own black powder cannons, and one or two loaded with grapeshot or cannister fired out the back of a van or truck would cause devastating casualties on a crowd.

Oh I see. But you don't see anything at all frankly ridiculous to be living in a country where any crazy person can own their own artillery and missile launchers and walk around the mall with weapons that can "cause devastating casualties on a crowd". :roll:

I feel a little like I am talking with a cannibal from some exotic Pacific Island and trying to convince them why eating other people is not a good thing, and just getting a puzzled look or even outrage at my infringement on their rights in response. We are just so far apart on this in terms of values that I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye. Your position is so out there and outrageous, and you say it with such calm matter-of-factness, that I find it hard to believe you are saying this stuff seriously and with a straight face.

 

[ataraxia]

You can continue to pursue this frankly ridiculous and overwrought discussion path or you can actually bring it back to what to do NOW, with the laws and SCOTUS decisions we have NOW.

What is there to discuss on what we can do NOW? Would you be open to anything? I doubt it. I think we just have to learn to live in a country with a reputation for being the mass-murder capital of the world. Oh well. In a democracy, people get what they want, and deserve.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh I see. But you don't see anything at all frankly ridiculous to be living in a country where any crazy person can own their own artillery and missile launchers and walk around the mall with weapons that can "cause devastating casualties on a crowd". :roll:

I feel a little like I am talking with a cannibal from some exotic Pacific Island and trying to convince them why eating other people is not a good thing, and just getting a puzzled look or even outrage at my infringement on their rights in response. We are just so far apart on this in terms of values that I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye. Your position is so out there and outrageous, and you say it with such calm matter-of-factness, that I find it hard to believe you are saying this stuff seriously and with a straight face.

why is it that the vast majority of people who all see "gun control" as a valid way to combat violent crime, are left wingers and thus are opposed to the candidates that the NRA usually support.

 

[ataraxia]

why is it that the vast majority of people who all see "gun control" as a valid way to combat violent crime, are left wingers and thus are opposed to the candidates that the NRA usually support.

For the same reason you see controlling nuclear proliferation as a valid way to combat nuclear holocausts. If you think an armed society is a polite society, think about what a peaceful and polite world we would have if all countries were armed with their own nuclear weapons. World Peace finally, right? Hey, it's your theory. Let's try it out.

 

[Harshaw]

For the same reason you see controlling nuclear proliferation as a valid way to combat nuclear holocausts. If you think an armed society is a polite society, think about what a peaceful and polite world we would have if all countries were armed with their own nuclear weapons. Hey, it's your theory. Let's try it out on a grand scale.

MAD staved off a third world war, and resulted in the most peaceful global stretch in all of world history.

The border between India and Pakistan is a lot less hot now than it was 25 years ago.

 

[TurtleDude]

For the same reason you see controlling nuclear proliferation as a valid way to combat nuclear holocausts. If you think an armed society is a polite society, think about what a peaceful and polite world we would have if all countries were armed with their own nuclear weapons. World Peace finally, right? Hey, it's your theory. Let's try it out.

that's not an answer

the real answer is contained here


Orlando Shooting -- Gun Control as Left-Wing Identity Politics | National Review

 

[ataraxia]

MAD staved off a third world war, and resulted in the most peaceful global stretch in all of world history.

The border between India and Pakistan is a lot less hot now than it was 25 years ago.

So then why are you guys getting upset about this proposal of nukes for all?