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

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The United States is not going to deploy one within its own borders on citizens and the citizens are not going to do the same.

Your faith in all men's sanity is touching. But I don't share it. I saw enough insane people out there to know that this argument is at least partially false.

originally posted by: swanne
Your faith in all men's sanity is touching. But I don't share it. I saw enough insane people out there to know that this argument is at least partially false.

So what are you saying about nuclear weapons? Partially false how?

a reply to: swanne

It's just stupid to the nth degree to discuss nuclear weapons as a part of the 2nd amendment. It is disturbing enough that so many countries have them, let alone to allow private citizens to possess them. Wanna bet some knucklehead decides to use his on another city due to some perceived slight or heck...why not so his team can win the Super Bowl? lol

Although it is tempting...I would use mine on Washington, DC. (kidding of course).

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Is that Hebrew on your profile avatar?

Yes. And is that Kryptonite in yours? (With the tone of: what does it matter to the current discussion? )

I wonder if a certain atrocity in Europe might have been avoided if the population owned tanks, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs?

The people can be armed all they like. The truth is, the ideology they fight for is not always right.

Example: when Hitler started his Nazi Party, he actually was "part" of the people. He fought "for the people", and against the German government. He focused everyone's hatred against the riches and the Jews, and this excuse for a revolution seduced everyone who was neither. He became a monster because of the people's thisrt for revolution. If more german people would have had more weapons at that time, Hitler would actually have won his first Putsch and Germany would have become Nazi for an even longer period of time in History.

When Mao Zedong started his maoist revolution, he was actually fighting "for the people", and against the Chinese government. He focused everyone's attention against the Elite, and this excuse for a revolution seduced everyone who wasn't part of the Elite. He became a monster because of the people's thirst for revolution. Even today, Mao Zedong is still regarded as a hero, even though he killed 40 million of chinese (including those who did not want to participate in Zedong's revolution) and made China weaker to Japanese attacks since the former was at war with itself instead of united against the Japanese. Zedong seduced so much people with his "revolution" that the sheeple became appreciative of their own slaughter: after the mass starvation which Mao caused, and the mass killing which he organized to repress counter-revolutionaries feelings, the people still worshipped him. If more pro-revolutionary chinese would have had more weapons at that time, the murders committed in the name of Zedong and his Revolution would have been even higher than 40 millions, as the number of pro-revolution missionaries/soldiers would have been higher, and their impact on the rest of China greater.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
So what are you saying about nuclear weapons? Partially false how?

There are many individuals, on Earth, who wish for the destruction of Mankind, or at least portions of it.

Scientist: We need to kill one thid of the human race

I want to destroy humanity

Humanity should be destroyed!

Give them the mean (nuclear bombs) and what do you think will happen?

a reply to: bbracken677

It is disturbing enough that so many countries have them, let alone to allow private citizens to possess them. Wanna bet some knucklehead decides to use his on another city due to some perceived slight or heck...

Hey, don't look at me, that's basically what I've been saying since the start of this thread!

a reply to: swanne

Yeah, but unless I have missed it I have not seen anyone come out and endorse the private possession of nukes.

An argument for possessing artillery could be made based on historical precedents, but nukes...just ridiculous and not even worthy of discussion. Anyone promoting such has to either be: a) a total nutcase who can be ignored or b) someone being facetious or c) a troll.

So why even bring it up?

originally posted by: swanne
There are many individuals, on Earth, who wish for the destruction of Mankind, or at least portions of it.

Scientist: We need to kill one thid of the human race

I want to destroy humanity

Humanity should be destroyed!

Give them the mean (nuclear bombs) and what do you think will happen?

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

Your first source is The Onion which is a parody newspaper, the articles are satire.

Your second is a Yahoo.com question in the same satirical vein.

Your third is some random internet troll who is not even discussing nuclear weapons.

Your entire reply is irrelevant and juvenile. When you have to resort to crap like this the intellectual aspect of your position is nonexistent.

a reply to: bbracken677

With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly-enriched uranium, nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient—though still quite powerful—gun-type nuclear weapon.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your entire reply is irrelevant and juvenile. When you have to resort to crap like this the intellectual aspect of your position is nonexistent.

I think you are avoiding the question. So I will repeat it, in even simpler words:

Do you think everyone is perfectly mentally sane?

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.

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?

originally posted by: swanne
Nothing in this sentence prevents the people from considering nuclear devices as "Arms".

Do you agree that a nuclear device is an Arm?

No, and the Supreme Court has defined the types of weapons citizens can own. Nuclear weapons are not one of them so you can quit your trolling on this point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you never heard the term, "nuclear arms"?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

I think you know full well that in the event of an antigovernmental Revolution, pro-revolution citizens will not subscribe to governmental bans on nuclear devices, but to avoid losing this debate you are choosing to ignore this possibility. The possibility that pro-revolutionary will at one point request nuclear armament to "prevent the federal military to gain superiority over the people's militias".

originally posted by: swanne
I think you know full well what I mean, but you are choosing to ignore the possibility that pro-revolutionary will at one point request nuclear armament to "prevent the federal military to gain superiority over the people's militias".

Since you obviously did not read my previous post I will explain it to you again; The Supreme Court has defined what types of arms citizens are allowed to own and nuclear weapons is not one of them.

It does not matter who asks for them, they are still not able to own them.

But feel free to beat a dead horse with your straw man.

a reply to: swanne

?

Nuclear weapons and the 2nd Amendment

Okie dokie

a reply to: swanne

I have also heard the phrase "nukular weapons".

Specially in light of the listed links, I fail to see anything but the obtuse nature of the post.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: tkwasny
The thinking behind how the common man militia should greatly outnumber the federal standing army.

It's not about numbers, anymore, it's about firepower. And now, the "standing federal army" has the nuclear bomb. Are you suggesting every common men should have the nuclear bomb too?

There were WMDs back in the 18th century, of course not the caliber the WMDs we have today. WMDs are purposed to annihilate populations not clusters of troops. Arms has been determined by a SCOTUS ruling as to mean that which can be carried in ONEs arms.

Having to overthrow a government should be very difficult, require a lot of blood and an overwhelming internal civilian population armed and determined to do so. Firepower of the M4 should be in the hands of the private citizen. Stingers, anti-aircraft and anti-armor should be in possession of the organized militia under each states governor. Those higher weapons should be available for the organized militia to distribute to the common militia with orders.

originally posted by: swanne
I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having automatic weapons, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bazooka at their home, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having a tank at their home, and I even saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bombs.

I think you are lying in this paragraph. You repeat over and over that you saw ATSERS quote the second amendment...and i think this is a lie because perhaps one ATSER said they wanted a bazooka or a tank or a bomb, and you are lying and saying that it is several.

When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

The first amendment was drafted almost three hundred years ago and it did not include television, telegraph, telephone, radio, internet and other modern telecommunications devices. Just books and newspapers. So how do you hypocritically use modern media and try to deny modern weapons, when both are inherent rights.

An inherent right means that it is God given and cannot be separated from the person. The right remains the same whether we go back to slings and arrows or advance to ray guns.

Similarly, your argument implies that to protect themselves from the shooters, schoolchildren should all carry an equally dangerous automatic weapon than the shooter. To me this is not logic, it is a recipe for disaster.

There is no argument that implies schoolchildren should be armed-----just the teachers.


You are a emotionally reasoning individual.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Is that Hebrew on your profile avatar?

Yes. And is that Kryptonite in yours? (With the tone of: what does it matter to the current discussion? )

I wonder if a certain atrocity in Europe might have been avoided if the population owned tanks, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs?

The people can be armed all they like. The truth is, the ideology they fight for is not always right.

Example: when Hitler started his Nazi Party, he actually was "part" of the people. He fought "for the people", and against the German government. He focused everyone's hatred against the riches and the Jews, and this excuse for a revolution seduced everyone who was neither. He became a monster because of the people's thisrt for revolution. If more german people would have had more weapons at that time, Hitler would actually have won his first Putsch and Germany would have become Nazi for an even longer period of time in History.

When Mao Zedong started his maoist revolution, he was actually fighting "for the people", and against the Chinese government. He focused everyone's attention against the Elite, and this excuse for a revolution seduced everyone who wasn't part of the Elite. He became a monster because of the people's thirst for revolution. Even today, Mao Zedong is still regarded as a hero, even though he killed 40 million of chinese (including those who did not want to participate in Zedong's revolution) and made China weaker to Japanese attacks since the former was at war with itself instead of united against the Japanese. Zedong seduced so much people with his "revolution" that the sheeple became appreciative of their own slaughter: after the mass starvation which Mao caused, and the mass killing which he organized to repress counter-revolutionaries feelings, the people still worshipped him. If more pro-revolutionary chinese would have had more weapons at that time, the murders committed in the name of Zedong and his Revolution would have been even higher than 40 millions, as the number of pro-revolution missionaries/soldiers would have been higher, and their impact on the rest of China greater.

Please read my post. I'm not going to explain why I commended on the Hebrew if you weren't able to figure it out in the most basic of english. It's all there, just read it again. It's easy and it makes perfect sense.

It doesn't matter what the ideology of the people is, by the way. They are the people. The people being the bottom line of Authority may be a foreign concept to you, but not to me or pretty much any western-raised person and you can see this as evident from the posts you read in this thread.

I don't require a history lesson but I appreciate that you made the effort.