Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
First, a nuke would obviously destroy YOU as well as ME and anyone else in the area, therefore it is not a weapon of defense, it's a weapon of mass destruction.
|
And where in the 2nd amendment does it exclude WMD's, or weapons that could destroy the person using it? You run around telling us the 2nd is nonexclusionary (which is why you should be allowed to have a machine gun), and then in the next breath you tell us it excludes certain weapons. You need to sit down and think out your position on this so that you can present a consistant argument.
Plus, if you make the argument that we're allowed to bear arms UNLESS the weapon we choose to bear could destroy the person using the weapon, then ALL guns should be illegal because the person could shoot themself with any gun.
Quote:
|
Second, the insanity of some individual wanting to own a nuke for self defense OR defense against the government is patently absurd because it would afford neither.
|
Yes, but you wanting to own a handgun or rifle, or even a machine gun isn't absurd, even though compared with the weapons the government has you may as well be using a slingshot?
I sometimes carry a simple stick as a self defense weapon. If I'm up against someone with a machine gun it obviously won't be much good for self defense. And it certainly wouldn't help me last very long against the army. Perhaps we should outlaw sticks.
I point out once again that the 2nd does not exclude weapons based on their utility. There is no qualifier in the second that says "unless it could kill the bearer, or unless it wouldn't do the bearer any good in a fight."
Quote:
|
Third, the argument that the people can no longer preserve a freedom against their government with nukes is ludicrous because a government would have to have popular support to fight an uprising. Using a nuke on their own soil, against their own people, would forever ruin even the slightest chance of such a prospect.
|
Ahh, now you're inventing an absurdity clause and a popular support clause to the 2nd. For an amendment that you seem to say does not exclude weapons or reasons to own weapons, you sure are digging up a lot of imaginary exclusions. Interesting that you ignore the only REAL exclusion, which says you need to be in a well-regulated militia to have a gun.
Quote:
|
comparing ownership of nuclear weapons to automatic weapons is not even close to the same concept and to try to say that it is, shows you so far removed from reality that it would be useless to attempt to show you the wrongness of your argument.
|
Saying you can go up against the government with a machine gun when they have tanks, howitzers, and stealth bombers is equally removed from reality. Are you suggesting that you, too, are not worth arguing with because you can't comprehend your own "wrongness?"
Quote:
|
you would never agree because your hatred of your fellow citizen overrides any desire to think logically.
|
So me saying that I don't think a guy with a .40 caliber machine gun will succeed against an armored tank which shoots shells that are almost 5 inches wide means I hate my fellow citizens? Where exactly do you come up with this stuff?
If you want more people to be convinced that it's a good idea to let anyone own a gun, I think maybe you want to stop advocating it yourself. Your illogical and poorly conceived arguments would tend to convince people that maybe some people shouldn't have one at all.