“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: swanne
Do you think everyone is perfectly mentally sane?

No, I do not. This however does not excuse your irrational use of the nuclear weapons canard in a Second Amendment debate.

Nuclear weapons are just but another form of armament. If a people is requesting bigger and bigger weapons to "counter the growing Military", then it is bound to happen that nuclear armament will be included in discussion, as part of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing in this sentence prevents the people from considering nuclear devices as "Arms".

Do you agree that a nuclear device is an Arm?

No a nuclear weapon is not a small arm weapon used by any infantry soldier, but it is a weapon of mass destruction.

Now let me explain why...

The cost of a nuclear device is very high. but the relative cost of another WMD such as a Bio-weapon is about .03 cents on the dollar to a nuclear weapon.

It is even more deadly than the nuke.

They can band a Bio-weapon just like they band guns in the hands of criminals, but you already know how that works.

Anyone that knows how to brew beer can make a Bio-weapon...

Pass all of the laws you want and the bad guys will not obey the laws because they are criminals!!!

Think before you speak next time...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you really think that revolutionaries who hate the government will abide to laws set by the government and which impede their revolution?

And BTW, There's not just nuclear weapons that can wipe out a large populated area, but also chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc. Some of them which are rather easy to make, as another poster pointed out.

You keep on focusing on nuclear bombs, but don't forget there's alot of other bombs which in the hands of an insane individual, could wipe out large chunks of population.

You still think it's a good idea for everyone to have the same level of armament than the federal military?

originally posted by: waltwillis
Anyone that knows how to brew beer can make a Bio-weapon...

Pass all of the laws you want and the bad guys will not obey the laws because they are criminals!!!

My point exactly! Revolutionaries don't care about the bans, they don't care about laws. They'll get their hands on any weapon they can, may it be bio, chemical, kinetic, energetic - anything so to create the most damage possible.

originally posted by: bbracken677
Specially in light of the listed links, I fail to see anything but the obtuse nature of the post.

You fail to see alot of things. That is why I don't trust you guys with a full scale Revolution.

originally posted by: swanne
So you really think that revolutionaries who hate the government will abide to laws set by the government and which impede their revolution?

And BTW, There's not just nuclear weapons that can wipe out a large populated area, but also chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc.

All of this is irrelevant as the Supreme Court determined that none of these are covered under the Second Amendment. It is not like you can just slap together a uranium refining operation in your basement so who even cares whether they think they should have a nuclear device or not.

Oh, wait. You do, so you can continue to use your moronic straw man argument.

You keep on focusing on nuclear bombs, but don't forget there's alot of other bombs which in the hands of an insane individual, could wipe out large chunks of population.

And remind us which of them are available to the public?

You still think it's a good idea for everyone to have the same level of armament than the federal military?

I think I should have access to all the weapons the average soldier has access to, that is impetus of the Second Amendment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And remind us which of them are available to the public?

Really, you don't know?

Uranium is present in natural ores in many areas of the World, and methods to build a weapon may be crude but still existent nevertheless: www.nci.org...
Nitroglycerine can be made using glycerine (such as the glycerine used in cosmetic products) mixed with nitrate - an element present in air and in fertilizers: csma31.csm.jmu.edu...
A bio-weapon is even easier - viruses an bacterias are present in most countries of the world, just like when this terrorist used Salmonella to infect 751 people in 1984: csma31.csm.jmu.edu...

I think I should have access to all the weapons the average soldier has access to, that is impetus of the Second Amendment.

This is but a vague statement, but we're getting somewhere. Please define which "weapons the average soldier has access to".

originally posted by: swanne
Uranium is present in natural ores in many areas of the World, and methods to build a weapon may be crude but still existent nevertheless. www.nci.org... Nitroglycerine can be made using glycerine (such as the glycerine used in cosmetic products) mixed with nitrate - an element present in air and in fertilizers csma31.csm.jmu.edu... A bio-weapon is even easier - viruses an bacterias are present in most countries of the world, just like when this terrorist used Salmonella to infect 751 people in 1984: csma31.csm.jmu.edu...

Who cares? None of these are permitted under the Second Amendment and anyone attempting to make them is going to prison.

This is but a vague statement, but we're getting somewhere. Please define which "weapons the average soldier has access to".

Firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And remind us which of them are available to the public?

Really, you don't know?

Uranium is present in natural ores in many areas of the World, and methods to build a weapon may be crude but still existent nevertheless: www.nci.org...
Nitroglycerine can be made using glycerine (such as the glycerine used in cosmetic products) mixed with nitrate - an element present in air and in fertilizers: csma31.csm.jmu.edu...
A bio-weapon is even easier - viruses an bacterias are present in most countries of the world, just like when this terrorist used Salmonella to infect 751 people in 1984: csma31.csm.jmu.edu...

I think I should have access to all the weapons the average soldier has access to, that is impetus of the Second Amendment.

This is but a vague statement, but we're getting somewhere. Please define which "weapons the average soldier has access to".

Any weapon that kills specific people is allowed by the second amendment. Strategic total war weapons are out because they kill non-combatants. Weapons that kill armored vehicles, naval vessels, enemy aircraft and satellites are legal.

Weapons are for defense only.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: bbracken677
Specially in light of the listed links, I fail to see anything but the obtuse nature of the post.

You fail to see alot of things. That is why I don't trust you guys with a full scale Revolution.

You seem to put your trust in government and not your fellows. I mistrust that far more.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: waltwillis
Anyone that knows how to brew beer can make a Bio-weapon...

Pass all of the laws you want and the bad guys will not obey the laws because they are criminals!!!

My point exactly! Revolutionaries don't care about the bans, they don't care about laws. They'll get their hands on any weapon they can, may it be bio, chemical, kinetic, energetic - anything so to create the most damage possible.

That is what we were told to do in the army...Break as much as you can and kill as many as you can kill in the shortest period of time as you can.

Case in point would be if a sniper takes out a guy with a larger weapon, then the toys now belong to the sniper.

We don't have no stinking badges! We don't have no stinking playbook either!

All things have a beginning, and middle, and a end, and as such governments are no exception as history has shown.

Are founders wanted the PEOPLE to have military small arms of the day to stand ready to defend against "ALL" enemies, both Foreign and "DOMESTIC"!

I ask you sir, what is the current day largest threat to our U.S. Constitution?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Any weapon that kills specific people is allowed by the second amendment. Strategic total war weapons are out because they kill non-combatants. Weapons that kill armored vehicles, naval vessels, enemy aircraft and satellites are legal.

Weapons are for defense only.

I was thinking that you had come up with a fairly good, coherent summary, but then you went and threw in that last line.

I understand where you're coming from with it, but you have to remember that you're not dealing with rational people. If your definition was taken and turned into the new 2A, they would now be arguing that the 2A strictly prohibits you from using those weapons in any context other than defence - so no going to the range to shoot targets, no training, no competitions, no hunting, etc. In fact it would probably become illegal to take them out of the safe to clean them, because this wasn't an act "of defence". Also, it would very likely be interpreted as meaning that you couldn't shoot back until you had been shot at least once, and it would probably also be taken to mean that it only counted if they were shooting at you, you couldn't act if they were shooting your spouse/children/coworkers etc.

Never seek to include a common sense balance, because common sense will never be applied to it.

Now, another major issue is the use of the words "specific people" and "non-combatants". The illogical liberal (apologies for the tautology) argument would now be that you are strictly prohibited from using a weapon against someone that you cannot name, and that you are strictly prohibited from using any weapon that has the capacity to harm a non-combatant - in other words, all of them.

Or, if each naval ship had at least one non-combatant (doctors, cooks, mechanics anyone?) on board at all times as a matter of protocol, any weapon that could be directed against a ship could kill a non-combatant, therefore those weapons would be strictly prohibited - in other words, all of them.

This is why you can't start qualifying things, or you at least need to pick your words with the utmost care. Remember, you're dealing with the sort of people who willingly vote for the Democrat party.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Who cares? None of these are permitted under the Second Amendment and anyone attempting to make them is going to prison.

So, your argument is that it is utterly impossible for citizens to possess such dangerous weapons.

Firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices.

And your second argument is that every citizens should have firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, my friend, you just proved my OP right. After several days of debates, you actually strengthened my original post.

If it is utterly impossible for citizens to possess mass destruction weapons, then any revolution (or even true defence) against the military is doomed to fail, because the military does have weapons of mass destruction, which gives them a net advantage over the pro-revolutionaries.

If every citizens should have firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices (nothing more, nothing less), then any revolution (or even true defence) against the military is doomed to fail, because the military has weapons of mass destruction, which gives them a net advantage over the pro-revolutionaries.

So why are you still beating the dead horse?

a reply to: swanne

Yes a discussion for American Citizens, about American issues.


You propose a change to someone else's laws in someone else's country.

And you don't see the problem with that.

Do you walk into your neighbors house and tell them they need to change their window treatment?

a reply to: macman

I live in Canada, where no one here is carrying a gun.

Yet we can still live in peace with each other.

How can you explain that?

a reply to: swanne

You are Canada. Good for you.

WE are not.

originally posted by: swanne


I live in Canada, where no one here is carrying a gun.

You sure about that?

a reply to: macman

Let's just say that here, owning a gun is not a right. It is a privilege.

a reply to: swanne

You really have no clue as to warfare, tactics or history.

Basically, since the Govt has Nukes, and the people don't, then the people automaggically looses.