fordy said:
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:
If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!
|
Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.
|
Let's not discriminate here....
You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.
|
The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on.
|
You've shown no logic towards the argument at all. Can you provide any kind of evidence in which a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb would NOT help with tyrannical reigimes?
You can't just cherry pick. "Oh this limit is suitable enough", while at the same time criticise others for wanting to impose THEIR limits. THAT is low capacity for logic right there...
|
A 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb is not a weapon with any use of self-defence. It annihilates all in its path and devastes more than just people but also the environment. This is a violation of the non-aggression axiom. As for the limitations, it has to do with the most recent supreme court interpretation of the second amendment in Heller vs. D.C. It was stated that any common weapon (as these semi-automatic weapons are) should not be restricted from civilians. This was also the intentions of the founding fathers.
|
If a nuclear device does not provide any form of self-defense, then I'd like to know why the US government spent billions, or even trillions of dollars developing nuclear arms in a race against the Soviet Union in the tactic of Mutually Assured Destruction in the late 20th century for. In a state of Total War, against any kind of "tyrannical reigime", everything is on the table in order to maintain power. This INCLUDES the use of nuclear weapons that happen to be at their disposal. Like many gun fanatics have argued, that more guns would reduce crime as nobody would want to shoot at anyone, a tyrannical reigime would be too afraid of unloading their nuclear payload without getting a similar retaliation aimed back towards them.
You cannot quote what the founding fathers' intentions are, because the sad fact is that nuclear devices did not exist in such a time. the Second amendment calls for "the right to keep and bear arms" in a well-regulated malitia. Nuclear arms are still arms, sorry to inform you.
So once again, why should we be working by the limits that YOU deem acceptable?
|
It did act as a deterrent in the Cold War, but it's use would've been retalitory, not a matter of self-defence (one would die regardless.) Hence, it is not a weapon to defend one's life, liberty, or property: it's just a payback device. Meanwhile, a semi-automatic weapon is a defensive weapon first and foremost and while it can be used as a retalitary device, it also has that valid of use of self-defence whilst a nuclear weapon does not. Furthermore, a tyrranical regime would not use Nuclear Weapons on the population who they deem fit to govern, in their own homeland, hence it would make very little sense to fear a domestic enemy who has nuclear weapons. However; if we really needed them, in the event of tyranny, we'd take them with the use of semi-automatic weapons.
|
Actually, a nuclear device is still used as a tactical defense weapon. One is less inclined to fire upon a malitia posessing nuclear devices, in the threat that such may be used against them. It's called Preventative Defense. For instance, can you name any world governments who have attacked governments in posession of nuclear arms? Yes, it has retaliatory properties too, but you're completely missing the whole preventative defense measure for the sake of your argument.
Do you really believe that your semi-automatic weapons are going to stand a chance against military grade weapons (which, by the way, you're not allowed to have anyway. where's the uproar on that, because if you're going to be fighting a tyrannical US government, you're going to be dealing with the US Army). Besides, what's not to stop the government detonating the devices from miles away and destroying the group of "patriots" who took posession of the device. Keep in mind that not all sites containing nuclear material are up for such an assault, some being in completely remote terrain, so the government would still posess at lease SOME nuclear devices, while having control to detonate others that are in danger of falling into malitia hands.
|
