So you don’t think there should be any limitations whatsoever on what type of arms should be allowed? Right now you can’t go out and buy a machine gun, for example, due to a 1937 federal law. A nuke is an “arm”. Would you allow someone to have one in his backyard?
Gary Doner
March 1, 2016
Comment to Local gun control
[You know he is ignorant and/or careless with the facts just by his errors regarding machine guns. That alone is almost enough to tell him to go away and come back when he knows what he is talking about. But Doner goes on to invoke Knox’s Law because he doesn’t have a plausible response to the plain and simple facts. And those are that the guns he wants to ban, “assault weapons”, are protected by the Second Amendment and are seldom used in criminal activity. Hence he needs to, in essence, change the subject.
You should never let them get away with this. Keep them on point and demand they acknowledge they were wrong with their original assertion. Their absurd argument need not be answered. Tell them, “We can get back to that when you find a nuke available for sale at Wal-Mart.”—Joe]
My response to the nuclear weapon argument is this: I agree that people should not be permitted to own nuclear weapons. There is a way to make that happen: Amend the Constitution. I am sure that you will have no problems getting the required votes of Congress and the State Legislatures to add such an Amendment. What you do not do is simply ignore the Constitution and the rule of Law because it suits you or is popular to do so.
My response is that everyone who can afford nuclear weapons already has one.
I was going to say “some of the worst people on the planet already have nukes” but that works too.
The point here is that the predator class is always armed, regardless of the law. The question we keep debating, whether we know it or not, is whether the good people will also be armed.
There are in fact no “limitations whatsoever on what type of arms” criminals may have. Not legally anyway. The acquisition price, as you say, is the only thing that may be said to be a limit.
Since they operate outside the law, legal limits do not apply to criminals.
Legal limits apply only to the law-abiding.
How many different ways can we state the obvious?
Here’s another; to attempt to restrict what criminals may legally possess is to attempt a logical contradiction. To keep at it after it’s been explained to you is to prove that you’re either insane or you’re just bad at deception.
One of the Points of Major Disconnect with the authoritarian class is that we see the legal system as a justice system, i. e. it exists to respond to rights violations. The Authoritarian mind doesn’t see that at all, really, or if it does see it, it’s only a trivial, or quaint, part of the role of government. Mainly it sees law as the means to mold, shape, direct, rearrange, control and restrict a society via wholesale coercion– That’s the Progressive mindset. Protecting rights then becomes, increasingly, an impediment to the process of good governance.
In short; those who adhere to the American Principles are an impediment. Authoritarians will invent all manner of argument, no matter how ridiculous, in the attempt to get us out of the way, but they will, they must, attempt to get us out of the way. Otherwise they’re done, because the authoritarian system simply cannot survive with the principles of liberty standing in clear contrast beside it. One or the other must go.
ETA; it is because of this simple truth that we have the advantage, should we choose to accept it. The authoritarian mind will always make fools of those who adhere to it, for the simple fact they must deny reality, and the farther they get, the more disconnected from reality they must become.
Quoting an unconstitutional 1937 law isn’t a particularly good way to prove your point.
Does this 1937 law apply in all 57 states?
Oooohhhh…. So THAT’S where he got the “7” from!
Always wondered about that. Thanks, Lyle!
Note that everyone knew Bill Clinton used drugs, but he lied about not inhaling and got elected. GW Bush admitted to be a habitual drunk and hard drug addict, got elected. BH Obama admitted to pot and hard core drugs. His autobiography states that he was a drug dealer, but he’s never been questioned on the point and nobody cares. Obama got elected. Obama has coyly suggested that he continues to use recreational drugs in the White House. As far as I know, nobody ever asked the VPs or VP candidates about their drug and alcohol use. You can decide for yourself about Biden. Hillary has a history of alcoholism.
The President of the United States has the ability to start nuclear war (unless we’ve been lied to, and I rather hope we have). Have you ever heard a liberal suggest their drug and alcohol use should prohibit them from high office? Or that their felonious crimes should prohibit them from access to weapons?
Gary Doner: A nuke is an “arm”. Would you allow someone to have one in his backyard?
Yeah? My arm is an “arm”. Are you going to tell me I’m not allowed to carry it on my person outside my front door?
Ad absurdum arguments swing both ways.
Nicely put, Lyle!
I’ve tried to explain this as using the wrong tool for the job. Writing new laws to restrict criminals, who by definition ignore laws, makes as much sense as driving screws with a rubber band, or signing checks with a pocketknife. Laws can be useful, but sometimes they’re the wrong tool.
The correct tool, in my opinion, is twofold: harsh punishments for crimes committed (which serves as a deterrent to some, albeit not all), and making sure citizens have the wherewithal to be first responders. The former attempts to deter crimes from happening; the latter attempts to end crimes as quickly as possible when they DO happen.
It’s the nuclear strawman, again.
Assembling a nuke is exactly the same as pointing a loaded rifle at everyone within the blast radius at the same time. Those hundred thousand plus individuals have a self defense right to sort your stupid crap out immediately.
I would disagree there. POINTING a gun at someone is different from merely owning a gun. Owning a nuke is different from threatening to use it.
There mere ownership of a weapon is protected by COTUS. If you want to outlaw a weapon, don’t read things into the document that aren’t there- simply amend the Constitution to exclude nukes from the definition of ‘arms’.