Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
So in your mind it would be completely acceptable, from a legal standpoint, to simply outlaw, say, the sale and transport of guns since you wouldn't be technically prohibiting the right to "bear" arms?
|
I'm not sure how we'd go about granting the government the legal authority to do such a thing. It might not be possible. It would certainly be against the spirit of protecting our rights under which our government draws authority, legal or not.
But, assuming we'd gotten to that point somehow, sure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Since no one has tried to blow up a city yet, so there would be no problems if nuclear weapons were widely available. That doesn't make sense to me.
|
How "widely available" are fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers? Not very. I don't see why something orders of magnitude more expensive to acquire and maintain would become as commonplace as you seem to expect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
First of all, it's hard enough to find a parking spot downtown as is, i can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if everybody had a tank.
|
Why doesn't everyone have mobile armor? You can buy some, demilitarized of course. Could be that many folks don't want 'em (just as many people don't own guns) or don't want to spend that much money on them (just as many people don't own exotic guns).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?
|
I also know people who think that the 1st also applies to unpopular speech.
I don't have a problem with there being a legal process (with various requirements on safeguarding, inspections, maintenance, storage, OQE, et al.) that allows folks who qualify to keep a nuclear device safely. I consider that preferable to them being acquired secretly and illegally.