Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 14. (Read 10869 times)

Ok ay just a dumb question plus co poster. .

ok  say in the spectrum of somebody owning a "PVC" pipe for spitting dried peas to owning a nuclear war head how would you state their political position. . ? ?

 

There should be no limits, even private nuke is OK for me.

The procedural limit for me is - use tactical nukes only against government forces and use strategic nukes only as a 3rd wave of strike (if governemnt retaliates). Government - any form of capitalism, communism, cannibalism, onanism.

The 2nd amendment is not intended for hunting deer and boar, it is for hunting down other people representing corrupt government.

This.

The thing is my sources are what is currently around us just like with evolution, if you look around you and at other countries you'll see the majority of the time people get along with each other reasonably well and even if they don't, most disputes etc. are solved peacefully with debate or through a third party rather than blowing someones head off. I swear you really do only seem to have this kind of problem in America where you have people becoming psychopaths from the amount of abuse people seem to go through over there.

Take the research I did in other threads for example, why is it in Serbia and Switzerland we have millions of guns in civilian ownership yet we don't hear stories from over there about schools getting shot up etc.? Making guns illegal won't do a thing for public safety, I also question the logic of gun regulation when politicians oh so confidently state how well it works yet they insist on walking around with security guards carrying concealed weaponry that civilians wouldn't be allowed to have, leaders couldn't be that sure of their own beliefs if they felt the need to have armed guards around themselves 24/7 to feel safe. You also have them constantly ranting about how all countries need to get nuclear weapons but you barely ever see them attempt it either so I'd like to see how they'd justify that kind of regulation when they won't put it on themselves.

The thing that's become most obvious to me lately is that people who scream for gun regulation want everyone except them or certain groups they support to have guns which screams to me of a power grab situation rather than caring about peoples safety, it's just a shame that a lot of gun advocates can't make these kind of arguments without screaming back and sounding like they're lunatics which is precisely why I mock them both.

p.s. I know a method of self-defense that's far better than any gun

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate what is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

I believe evolution exists because the preponderance of evidence supports it, not because I'm using "common sense" or my own personal experience. Can you say the same about your your view that most people live peacefully "regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods."

You may be correct, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you if you have any source material for your beliefs. It helps me judge how accurate they're likely to be.


Just because your friends live in a nice quiet neighbourhood doesn't mean all people do.


Wait, what? We're not friends anymore?

Sure Captain Specifics, I meant most people, as for the source, it's a bit like with evolution, when you look using your eyes instead of silly propaganda you'll realise that people get along with each other fine most of the time, you can even see it amongst your friends, you do have friends don't you?

With no special skills, I draw the line at knives and swords. Even for shotguns and long guns, I think it's reasonable to require a gun safety course, trigger locks, and so on.

OP updated again.

I would hope so. But someone wants to make lots of money will sell to whomever they want, and in a way that most citizens won't be able to stop. Selling parts by mail, or selling blueprints for 3d printed weapons, for example.

No positions are being taken. I have no loyalty to the US Government, or any particular government party of any particular country.


Source? When you say "most" do you mean "most people" or "most people I know"?

It will depend on the community, but you can be pretty sure that sellers etc. in the community would take it pretty personally if they're friends got threatened with guns that they sold, the problem with taking the position of a government loyalist is that these people don't seem to realise that most don't want to fight or have violence happening around them constantly, the idea that violence happens purely because of guns is just daft by itself too, particularly when I can get my hands on all sorts of explosives and chemical weaponry at your average hardware store.

You don't have to have a government in order to live peacefully, in fact, most people do it regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods.

Of course. A rule requiring multiple people's assent to grant access to the weapon is totally reasonable. Regular monitoring of mental health is reasonable too. As a practical matter, nobody is likely to go to the trouble of meeting these qualifications, so probably nobody will bother figuring them out in the first place. But in principle, there's no reason nuclear weapons shouldn't be available to civilians if they can meet those reasonable requirements needed to handle them safely.

Presumably, there is some set of requirements sufficient to ensure they're used properly and responsibly. If people can't meet those requirements, they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If they can, why shouldn't they have them?

Why would a seller not want to sell? Especially if he or she doesn't live locally.

I was just thinking something similar when I responded to the second post, so I've changed OP. I personally do believe that in no circumstance any private individual should be allowed unfettered access to and ownership of a nuclear device. Even if a they were able to satisfactorily protect their family and the weapon, any risk of a previously undiagnosed mental illness leading the owner to use the weapon is too great a risk.

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

You don't give a four year old a kitchen knife. Your focus on types of weapons is unproductive, IMO.

Either pick a type of weapon and ask what restrictions should be on it, or pick a restriction and ask which weapons should be restricted no more than that. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get useful answers.

For example, "What should a person have to do to own a hangun" is a useful question. "What weapons should be available to a normal adult with no more than a background check and a day of training" is a useful question.

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

I think you've kind of guaranteed a useless answer by using the term "general public". Any weapon should be available to anyone who meets the reasonable requirements for owning such a weapon, whether it be a hammer or a nuclear bomb. There is no reason to draw a line at some arbitrary point rather than imposing reasonable requirements on ownership of all weapons. I can't imagine how any person might meet reasonable requirements for a nuclear bomb, if that helps.