Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by nenothtu
But seriously, as a full fledged advocate, where do we draw the line?
I'm capable of building a nuke, But does it mean I'm entitled to?
As you stated: Arms are arms (nuclear or not) As a level
headed person, you must see my point; don't you?
When do entitlements become restrictive?
When everyone supports an RPG?
It's gotta end somewhere.
When if not now?
If you are truly able to build a nuke, I know of several world governments that would like to speak with you. They'd probably offer a good bit of
coin, as they have not yet been able to master that enterprise themselves, and would pay dearly for your assistance.
As far as your "entitlement" goes, yes, you have a right
to build a nuke if you have the capability, but in all honesty, what would you want
with one? There's really nothing you can do with it, and I'm pretty sure that any attempted use would result in your immediate erasure, so why bother
to begin with? Seems sort of counter-productive to me.
Most anyone capable of building a nuke would most certainly not think they have a need to ask anyone's permission to do so.
I can, in fact, build an RPG if I wanted one. It wouldn't be legal, but I have that right
(rights are not contingent upon legal permissions)
and capability if I wanted one. In point of fact I DON'T want one. I can't think of any use I would have for it. I suspect that were they legalized
today, we would discover that a fairly large swath of the population felt the same way about having their own personal RPG as I do. Don't need it,
therefore don't want it. I doubt we'll see the day when everyone sports one, legal or not. If I ever DO need one, rest assured I'll have one, and
won't ask anyone's leave about it.
Here's the thing, from my own viewpoint: none of these devices should be illegal of themselves. They are only inanimate objects. Misuse
is another matter altogether, and should be met with immediate, and excessively painful, censure. I wouldn't think immediate death to be too excessive
for misuse of one of these items, including firearms. After all, doing so puts other folks at risk, and what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Along with rights come responsibilities, not the least of which is to not endanger innocents.
Certain and sever punishment would go a long way in fostering that attitude of responsibility, and preventing misuse. What we have now is a lot of
handwringing over those poor, unfortunate, misunderstood, and mistreated miscreants who feel no responsibility, coupled with an irrational desire to
punish inanimate objects.
It's entirely upside down to be designed to get results.
As for "when will it end?", it will end when harmful, toxic people
end. Until then, we will have precisely what we have now. The tools are a
moot point in reality, as those types of people will always find something to do harm with. I personally know of a case several years ago where a
grown man stabbed his 8 year old son to death with a screwdriver. No one suggested banning screwdrivers over it. A dangerous person, whether dangerous
through instability or just junkyard dog mean, will always find something to use when he wants to do the deed.
So, to end it, the focus should be on dangerous, harmful, toxic people, rather than chasing our tails around and staying distracted by the implements
they use for destruction. That misdirection of attention is doing exactly NOTHING to address, or even see, the real issues.
Let's be clear, I never said take away our rights to bare arms.
I think we need restrictions on the type, and amount of people permitted.
Some will say "assault weapons can kill hundreds, and a screwdriver only one". I hear that a lot, but it's bunk, another attempt at misdirection. The
last assault rifle I bought, I paid 430 dollars US for. For considerably less than that, around 10 dollars US, I can build a device that will erase
everyone in a theater, and just leave smears and odd body parts behind. Everything I need I could go out and get tomorrow morning, and have it
assembled by 4 pm, and not a single soul would even think to question me.
Assault weapons are a distraction, as is the "gun issue" in general, to keep focus away from where it really ought to be - protecting society from
harmful people. That can't be done with 100 percent certainty as long as there ARE harmful people, so folks want to attack SOMETHING to make
themselves feel better, to feel like they're doing something. It's safest to attack inanimate objects, because they can't attack back. So, we then
have endless debates about gun bans, and let the really dangerous issues just slide off of the map.
The constitution allows the criminally insane, mentally disabled, and otherwise unstable
to support nuclear weapons by the word of the law. Is that really a good idea?
Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to allow those types to be in general circulation in a dangerous way to begin with. Deal with THEM, and the
rest becomes moot points.
edit on 2011/1/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)