[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127439]If you want tanks and artillery, why not nukes? It's not you good citizens are going to do anything bad with the nukes? What reason is there to not making nukes legal to the public then?[/QUOTE]
Because if you test fire a nuke everyone in the viscinity dies, if you test fire a cannon, no one dies.
See the point of the second amendment is to give citizens the ability to kill soldiers of a corrupt government if the situation arises, a nuke will kill civilians, soldiers of any side, just everyone and it'll make the ground radioactive for years to come.
It's a completely different issue.
[QUOTE=Armotekma;24127458]1. Tanks and Artillery don't compare to a nuke in destruction scale.
2. Nagasaki & Hiroshima[/QUOTE]
Thank you! The fallacy is everywhere my friend. Pistols and shotguns don't compare to tanks and artillery in a destruction scale. But you think they should be legal?
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127489]Thank you! The fallacy is everywhere my friend. Pistols and shotguns don't compare to tanks and artillery in a destruction scale. But you think they should be legal?[/QUOTE]
Yes they do compare.
[editline]12:42AM[/editline]
NO one said they didn't compare.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127468]If you want tanks and artillery, why not nukes? It's not you good citizens are going to do anything bad with the nukes? What reason is there to not making nukes legal to the public then? WMD's are not irrelevant, because you stated that the constitution's meaning still stands as a need for a regulated militia. If the government can use nukes to take out a resistance state, why should you not have nukes to fight back?[/QUOTE]
Because the government isn't going to nuke a "resistance state" when conventional warfare would be much more effective and less controversial.
Government nukes own citizens, blamed for crimes against humanity, whole EU is on their ass.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127482]Because if you test fire a nuke everyone in the viscinity dies, if you test fire a cannon, no one dies.
See the point of the second amendment is to give citizens the ability to kill soldiers of a corrupt government if the situation arises, a nuke will kill civilians, soldiers of any side, just everyone and it'll make the ground radioactive for years to come.
It's a completely different issue.[/QUOTE]
Now we're talking.
You're relying on old laws. Same as Islamic countries where they stone people to death for Apostasy. Our army will not become corrupt and attack the US because nowadays our army is composed of soldiers with American families. The amendment doesn't relate to that in the modern age. It is now there for self defence purposes, in which you need nothing more than a shotty or a pistol.
[editline]02:45AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127514]Because the government isn't going to nuke a "resistance state" when conventional warfare would be much more effective and less controversial.
Government nukes own citizens, blamed for crimes against humanity, whole EU is on their ass.[/QUOTE]
I assume by EU you meant the UN, which is another reason why a "well regulated militia" is no longer needed.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127525]It is now there for self defence purposes, in which you need nothing more than a shotty or a pistol.[/QUOTE]
Oh okay will you kindly point to where it says that?
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127525]Our army will not become corrupt and attack the US because nowadays our army is composed of soldiers with American families.[/QUOTE]
And it wasn't in 1776 or 1860?
Did everyone keep their kids in Germany in the past or something?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127571]Oh okay will you kindly point to where it says that?[/QUOTE]
Reread my post. The bible says we should tone homosexuals to death, but its followers have adapted their beliefs to fit modern times. Same thing with the constitution.
Also, apparently there is no good argument against buying nukes. Like you guys said, nobody would use a nuke on America apparently, so what's the harm in selling them to the general public?
[editline]02:51AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127585]And it wasn't in 1776 or 1860?
Did everyone keep their kids in Germany in the past or something?[/QUOTE]
We were occupied by the British.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127596]Like you guys said, nobody would use a nuke on America apparently, so what's the harm in selling them to the general public?[/QUOTE]
America wouldn't use a nuke on America.
The government wouldn't deploy them, thus there's no need for retaliation, thus the need is completely outweighed by the risk.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127596]Reread my post. The bible says we should tone homosexuals to death, but its followers have adapted their beliefs to fit modern times. Same thing with the constitution. [/QUOTE]
This is not done anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. I suppose you don't know that this kind of shit happens all the time, in fact there was a similar occurrence in this very year where the people tried to overthrow the government. They used guns.
Nothing has been, or needs to be "adapted to modern times" because modern times are no different than back then.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127596]We were occupied by the British.[/QUOTE]
Loyalist Americans fought Rebels, North fought South.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kyrgyzstan_uprising[/url]
What was that about modern times?
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127632]America wouldn't use a nuke on America.
The government wouldn't deploy them, thus there's no need for retaliation, thus the need is completely outweighed by the risk.[/QUOTE]
Since you aren't the government and can not tell the future, how would you know if the government wouldn't use a small nuke on America in the future? Apparently the right to bear arms means the right to have any weapon. You have to be prepared for anything correct?
Which brings me back to my question. Why then, do you think nukes should not be allowed to the general public? Even if nobody has good reason to use them, shouldn't we be allowed to sell them anyways?
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127679]Since you aren't the government and can not tell the future, how would you know if the government wouldn't use a small nuke on America in the future? Apparently the right to bear arms means the right to have any weapon. You have to be prepared for anything correct?
Which brings me back to my question. Why then, do you think nukes should not be allowed to the general public? Even if nobody has good reason to use them, shouldn't we be allowed to sell them anyways?[/QUOTE]
Nukes are banned from use world wide. They're only used as a deterrent. The people don't need such a deterrent because the government isn't that fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127674][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kyrgyzstan_uprising[/url]
What was that about modern times?[/QUOTE]
That riot was about taxes. Completely irrelevant as it was just a bunch of angry people over taxes. Now imagine that the protesters had tanks, artillery, and high explosives. A bloody mess.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127679]how would you know if the government wouldn't use a small nuke on America in the future?[/QUOTE]
Because they'd risk international war and have absolutely nothing to gain?
You do realize nukes are just deterrents to keep people from using nukes, right? They have no real use. If they needed to do something so badly, it'd be much more economical to carpet bomb it.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127749]That riot was about taxes. Completely irrelevant as it was just a bunch of angry people over taxes. Now imagine that the protesters had tanks, artillery, and high explosives. A bloody mess.[/QUOTE]
They did have high explosives. And regardless they still overthrew the government, that's the entire point of the second amendment.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127749]Completely irrelevant as it was just a bunch of angry people over taxes. Now imagine that the protesters had tanks, artillery, and high explosives. A bloody mess.[/QUOTE]
The American revolution was just a bunch of angry people over taxes.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127722]Nukes are banned from use world wide. They're only used as a deterrent. The people don't need such a deterrent because the government isn't that fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
Answer the question guys. People aren't that stupid either. Us good guys would never set off a nuke. So why should we not be able to buy nukes? We can put nukes up for display in our personal collections! Why in the world should it be prohibited then? Give me a straight answer.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127792]Answer the question guys. People aren't that stupid either. Us good guys would never set off a nuke. So why should we not be able to buy nukes? We can put nukes up for display in our personal collections! Why in the world should it be prohibited then? Give me a straight answer.[/QUOTE]
Ok, we should have nukes. Happy now?
[editline]01:07AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127781][img]http://info-wars.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/protester-rpg2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
If only that were a top hat.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127813]Ok, we should have nukes. Happy now?
[editline]01:07AM[/editline]
If only that were a top hat.[/QUOTE]
I want to meet that man.
[editline]01:10AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127792]Answer the question guys. People aren't that stupid either. Us good guys would never set off a nuke. So why should we not be able to buy nukes? We can put nukes up for display in our personal collections! Why in the world should it be prohibited then? Give me a straight answer.[/QUOTE]
Fuck it, I'll take a nuke.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127813]Ok, we should have nukes. Happy now?
[editline]01:07AM[/editline]
If only that were a top hat.[/QUOTE]
There you go. Previously you said you drew the line at artillery and tanks. But I just showed that by your logic, nukes should be allowed as well.
We all know about the Virginia Tech incident. He came in with small arms and killed some students. Now imagine a lunatic like that and some of his lunatic friends firing off artillery at a town, fucking LEVELLING the place. There is a difference between small arms and artillery, and that is destructive capability. Sure, you want a shotgun to protect your home? Okay. That's fine. If it turns out you're a psycho you'll kill some people. But if you buy some heavy artillery and turn out to be a psycho, you can level an entire town. Sometimes the risk is WAY too high to take, and your "rights" need to be overridden to accommodate that risk. That is why you're not allowed to own heavy artillery or a tank with fully functional weapon systems.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127878]There you go. Previously you said you drew the line at artillery and tanks. But I just showed that by your logic, nukes should be allowed as well.[/quote]
No I was sick of you exaggerating things so I tried to get you to shut up.
[quote]We all know about the Virginia Tech incident. He came in with small arms and killed some students. Now imagine a lunatic like that and some of his lunatic friends firing off artillery at a town, fucking LEVELLING the place.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if a 16 year old kid had $500k to buy a few artillery pieces and enough ammo for a sustained barrage.
Ugh, Viephemeral, keep this shit out of here please.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24127878]There you go. Previously you said you drew the line at artillery and tanks. But I just showed that by your logic, nukes should be allowed as well.
We all know about the Virginia Tech incident. He came in with small arms and killed some students. Now imagine a lunatic like that and some of his lunatic friends firing off artillery at a town, fucking LEVELLING the place. There is a difference between small arms and artillery, and that is destructive capability. Sure, you want a shotgun to protect your home? Okay. That's fine. If it turns out you're a psycho you'll kill some people. But if you buy some heavy artillery and turn out to be a psycho, you can level an entire town. Sometimes the risk is WAY too high to take, and your "rights" need to be overridden to accommodate that risk. That is why you're not allowed to own heavy artillery or a tank with fully functional weapon systems.[/QUOTE]
Dude, I just want you to shut up. You have one point that you hold onto with your dear life despite how fucking stupid it is. It's so completely exaggerated and far fetched that it doesn't even apply anymore to what we're talking about.
Hell you still can't give us a good reason why anything you want banned should be banned, you're continuing to result to the WHAT IF ARGUMENT
WHAT IF COLUMBINE MASSACRE WAS DONE WITH TANKS???
Well what the fuck if? It wasn't, nothing of that caliber has ever happened, you have no evidence to say that it will despite tanks being as readily available as they ever will be, you can't argue that point any further.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24127908]No I was sick of you exaggerating things so I tried to get you to shut up.
Imagine if a 16 year old kid had $500k to buy a few artillery pieces and enough ammo for a sustained barrage.[/QUOTE]
A fucked up rich kid with inheritance money can. Risk is too high to take. And if you don't see that, take it up with the government. I want to see how far your logic will go with them.
[quote=viephemeral;24127945]a fucked up rich kid with inheritance money can. Risk is too high to take. And if you don't see that, take it up with the government. I want to see how far your logic will go with them.[/quote]
what if
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24127936]WHAT IF COLUMBINE MASSACRE WAS DONE WITH TANKS???[/QUOTE]
WHAT IF THEY HAD AUTOCANNONS AND POWER ARMOR.
It could happen man. Better ban power armor. But since we don't have it yet, better ban prosthetics.
Where are you getting these fucked up rich kids that know how to drive and fire tanks anyway? Do they go to tank school or something?
God I wish you knew how ridiculous this sounds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.