M.E.Eldridge said:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html
This is only one place. A dealer sample is not transferable to a private citizen. Note the price differences between that and what *is* transferable.
Who needs a new car, anyway?
Need versus Want In America
- Thread starter Plumber576
- Start date
- Status
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html
This is only one place. A dealer sample is not transferable to a private citizen. Note the price differences between that and what *is* transferable.
Who needs a new car, anyway?
PlayboyPenguin
member
I have to agree. I love my large format HD screen. Mine is not used for sports though...Battlestar Galactica looks great on it.redbearde said:
PlayboyPenguin said:I have to agree. I love my large format HD screen. Mine is not used for sports though...Battlestar Galactica looks great on it.
Yeah, but you understand the necessity even if you're not into sports.
I find it ridiculous that someone else would try to decide something is not a necessity for me.....especially exercising an inalienable right protected by the constitution.
BTW, you're right. BG looks MOST EXCELLENT on mine, too.
markdaniel
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 85
I do believe te second amendment is to protect us from the government so we should be able top own all types of the weapons that the military has. If the government don't trust its citizens with all the weapons it posseses why should we as citizens trust our government with them? If the government isnt corrupt it should have nothing to fear from its citizens.I guess thats the real reason for banning any kind of weapons is so our corrupt government can expand on its corruption without frea of its citizens.
another okie
Member
1. "He looked at me, then went off in a tangent about crime and criminals, completely dismissing my point."
That's how some people admit they're wrong. They can't say it, so they just change the subject. Very few people are comfortable saying, "Ok, you win that one, now here's my next point" but that's what he was saying indirectly.
He was admitting he couldn't answer you, which is not the same as dismissing your point.
2. One response to the "do you want my crazy neighbor to have a nuclear weapon" argument is to say that the Second Amendment protects ownership of weapons appropriate for our membership in the militia: rifles, pistols, shotguns. Nuclear weapons are more like the naval ships of the 18th century, something for the pros.
(At least that's an argument you can make. I'm not saying I find it totally compelling, since militias in the 1700s did often have cannons, but it's an argument based on the constitution and history and it gets the antis off this point, which many of them regard as rrefutable.)
The other part of this reply is that the weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those which would be useful in overthrowing a tyrant. Nuclear weapons are kind of irrelevant to that, since a state is not likely to use nuclear weapons against its own people, nor are the people likely to use nuclear weapons against one tyrant.
That's how some people admit they're wrong. They can't say it, so they just change the subject. Very few people are comfortable saying, "Ok, you win that one, now here's my next point" but that's what he was saying indirectly.
He was admitting he couldn't answer you, which is not the same as dismissing your point.
2. One response to the "do you want my crazy neighbor to have a nuclear weapon" argument is to say that the Second Amendment protects ownership of weapons appropriate for our membership in the militia: rifles, pistols, shotguns. Nuclear weapons are more like the naval ships of the 18th century, something for the pros.
(At least that's an argument you can make. I'm not saying I find it totally compelling, since militias in the 1700s did often have cannons, but it's an argument based on the constitution and history and it gets the antis off this point, which many of them regard as rrefutable.)
The other part of this reply is that the weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those which would be useful in overthrowing a tyrant. Nuclear weapons are kind of irrelevant to that, since a state is not likely to use nuclear weapons against its own people, nor are the people likely to use nuclear weapons against one tyrant.
NineseveN
member
another okie said:
You might want to check up on that, I seem to recall the private ownership of battleships during that period (in addittion to cannons) appearing in documentation somewhere. Just a minor point.
I'm not arguing for or against the nukes in the hand of private citizens however, just making a minor point.
Brother in Arms
Member
Of Course many ships used in the revolution where privately owned, same as cannon ect. Weapons where not restricted during that time period. You where only limited by what you afford.
However the law isn't supposed to restrict us to small arms. It just says arms, It doesn't get more vague than that. The way I see it, it is intentionally so. That way it cant limit weapons in the future. When the Founding fathers drafted the constitution they had an eye on the future. Particularluy the Anti-federalist who are responsable for the bill of rights.
Nuclear weapons are a bad deal but like anything they exsist. There is no putting them back in Pandoras box. You will never see them go away, unless they get used.
Back to the topic at hand: NEED Vs. WANT
I know what I want an M1A. I know what I need A JOB.
Brother in Arms
However the law isn't supposed to restrict us to small arms. It just says arms, It doesn't get more vague than that. The way I see it, it is intentionally so. That way it cant limit weapons in the future. When the Founding fathers drafted the constitution they had an eye on the future. Particularluy the Anti-federalist who are responsable for the bill of rights.
Nuclear weapons are a bad deal but like anything they exsist. There is no putting them back in Pandoras box. You will never see them go away, unless they get used.
Back to the topic at hand: NEED Vs. WANT
I know what I want an M1A. I know what I need A JOB.
Brother in Arms
Brother in Arms
Member
OOps double post
Think about this for a minute, please.
Long ago, private citizens owned vessels, and placed cannon on them for defense. Many of these were given letters of marque by the continental congress or used outright by the fledgeling revolutionary army. Ditto field pieces and the such, owned by people that could afford them.
Should these citizens have not had access to the most powerful weapons of their time?
Scale of possible damage does not matter.
Repeat that.
I would have no problem with citizens owning a nuclear weapon, because the risk to me is no greater than if they owned a Bryco .22 pistol. A person that would not shoot me in my sleep wouldn't nuke my hometown for a laugh.
Frankly, I believe that I can trust a Bill Gates type, who has everything to lose for using his power, a scoche more than the average government beurocrat anyway.
Long ago, private citizens owned vessels, and placed cannon on them for defense. Many of these were given letters of marque by the continental congress or used outright by the fledgeling revolutionary army. Ditto field pieces and the such, owned by people that could afford them.
Should these citizens have not had access to the most powerful weapons of their time?
Scale of possible damage does not matter.
Repeat that.
I would have no problem with citizens owning a nuclear weapon, because the risk to me is no greater than if they owned a Bryco .22 pistol. A person that would not shoot me in my sleep wouldn't nuke my hometown for a laugh.
Frankly, I believe that I can trust a Bill Gates type, who has everything to lose for using his power, a scoche more than the average government beurocrat anyway.
PlayboyPenguin said:
georgeduz
Member
i dont like hunting,i buy good beef at the store,its not about wants or needs,its about rights and liberty.
AirForceShooter
Member
I want a Ferrari, a Dino.
I need a Corvette.
It's that simple.
Now when we get to guns that's a whole different story.
AFS
I need a Corvette.
It's that simple.
Now when we get to guns that's a whole different story.
AFS
ServiceSoon
Member
Citizens and nuclear owner-ship
I think logic can explain all situations. It works the same way complex math does. If a=b and b=c then a=c. That is how I think so that is how I try to solve problems.
A good starting point would be that human beings have a right to control themselves as long as doing so doesnt force control on any other human being. If you extend that one step further, every human being has a right to self-defense. In order to be able to satisfy the right to self-defense one must possess the TOOLS necessary to do so. The problem arises when you practice that right, but the effects of your TOOL creates collateral damage beyond your control. In that situation you have alienated other human beings right to themselves. It shouldnt matter if you are a liberal or a conservative, that example is easy to follow and simple. We could make it more complex if we wanted...
I think logic can explain all situations. It works the same way complex math does. If a=b and b=c then a=c. That is how I think so that is how I try to solve problems.
A good starting point would be that human beings have a right to control themselves as long as doing so doesnt force control on any other human being. If you extend that one step further, every human being has a right to self-defense. In order to be able to satisfy the right to self-defense one must possess the TOOLS necessary to do so. The problem arises when you practice that right, but the effects of your TOOL creates collateral damage beyond your control. In that situation you have alienated other human beings right to themselves. It shouldnt matter if you are a liberal or a conservative, that example is easy to follow and simple. We could make it more complex if we wanted...
ServiceSoon
Member
double post
Twycross
Member
Ok, So maybe I could never actually use a nuke without harming innocents. But does that justify making it illegal for me to have one? If I want to peaceably keep a 55 gallon drum of VX nerve gas in my basement, or buy a nuke .50 BMG, why should that be wrong?
ctdonath
Member
Yes you can. If there's a fire, you are practically obligated to. If there isn't and you do anyway, you're liable for the consequences.
Your rights end only where others are harmed.
I can walk four blocks, plop down $3000, fill out some paperwork & pay a tax, and (once all is processed) walk away with a full-auto weapon. Totally legal.
"Rights have limits" may be true, but you're very confused about where those limits are.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Nukes
We've moved to the ridiculous on this question of nuclear weapons in private hands as it relates RKBA. It's assumed that most people who handle nukes must be qualified to handle nukes because the consequences of a AD/ND are much MUCH more catastrophic than the same with a pistol or grandpa's "thutty-thutty" Winchester. OOPS! is not what you want to hear in the command center of a nuclear missle silo.
The argument isn't even valid. Apples to mutated Kiwi fruit. I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that the RKBA wouldn't include weapons of that magnitude...and that reasonable folk would understand that.
Carry on!
We've moved to the ridiculous on this question of nuclear weapons in private hands as it relates RKBA. It's assumed that most people who handle nukes must be qualified to handle nukes because the consequences of a AD/ND are much MUCH more catastrophic than the same with a pistol or grandpa's "thutty-thutty" Winchester. OOPS! is not what you want to hear in the command center of a nuclear missle silo.
The argument isn't even valid. Apples to mutated Kiwi fruit. I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that the RKBA wouldn't include weapons of that magnitude...and that reasonable folk would understand that.
Carry on!
Fly320s
Member
Need vs Want.
We humans need: air, water, food.
Everything else is a want.
I like to keep things simple/get to the heart of the matter.
We humans need: air, water, food.
Everything else is a want.
I like to keep things simple/get to the heart of the matter.
KriegHund
Member
Need vs Want only matters when its causing harm.
ctdonath
Member
Here comes the nuke red herring again.
Question is whether the one raising it is willing to discuss it.
It comes back to Cooper's Four Rules, generalized.
---
1. ALL [WEAPONS] ARE ALWAYS LOADED.
Always presume that the weapon in question is in its most dangerous state. For nukes, that's a button-press from detonation.
2. NEVER LET THE [IMPACT ZONE] COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
Nukes are in range of everything a mile away.
3. KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
Maybe you can do that.
4. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET [AND WHAT ELSE WILL BE HIT]
It's a nuke. Range of effect is miles. You can't be sure who/what will be hit.
---
Violate any of these rules - especially if you knowingly violate several rules - and others are justified in aggressively separating you from your weapon. Unless stored in the desert or somewhere far from anyone, and a normal person would be sure nobody else is in danger, your nuke inherently violates 3 of the 4 rules.
Only because a nuke cannot be stored or used "safely" do you lose your right to own one. It's not an arbitrary line (as drawn by those who usually bring up the "nuke vs. RKBA" line), it's a rational conclusion derived from solid safety rules. Machineguns CAN be handled safely; nukes CAN'T.
From where I'm sitting right now (living room couch) I frequently hear machinegun fire at a local indoor range a block away. I even know that the guns are pointed vaguely in my direction. Doesn't bother me a bit - because I know that Cooper's Four Rules are being followed. If I heard a nuke go off (Atlanta, prime target, is an hour away), I'd be sure Cooper's Four Rules had not been followed.
Don't give me the "rights have limits" argument regarding the 2nd Amendment unless you can RATIONALLY ARTICULATE the reasoning. I'm not accepting arbitrary lines drawn on my rights.
Question is whether the one raising it is willing to discuss it.
It comes back to Cooper's Four Rules, generalized.
---
1. ALL [WEAPONS] ARE ALWAYS LOADED.
Always presume that the weapon in question is in its most dangerous state. For nukes, that's a button-press from detonation.
2. NEVER LET THE [IMPACT ZONE] COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
Nukes are in range of everything a mile away.
3. KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
Maybe you can do that.
4. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET [AND WHAT ELSE WILL BE HIT]
It's a nuke. Range of effect is miles. You can't be sure who/what will be hit.
---
Violate any of these rules - especially if you knowingly violate several rules - and others are justified in aggressively separating you from your weapon. Unless stored in the desert or somewhere far from anyone, and a normal person would be sure nobody else is in danger, your nuke inherently violates 3 of the 4 rules.
Only because a nuke cannot be stored or used "safely" do you lose your right to own one. It's not an arbitrary line (as drawn by those who usually bring up the "nuke vs. RKBA" line), it's a rational conclusion derived from solid safety rules. Machineguns CAN be handled safely; nukes CAN'T.
From where I'm sitting right now (living room couch) I frequently hear machinegun fire at a local indoor range a block away. I even know that the guns are pointed vaguely in my direction. Doesn't bother me a bit - because I know that Cooper's Four Rules are being followed. If I heard a nuke go off (Atlanta, prime target, is an hour away), I'd be sure Cooper's Four Rules had not been followed.
Don't give me the "rights have limits" argument regarding the 2nd Amendment unless you can RATIONALLY ARTICULATE the reasoning. I'm not accepting arbitrary lines drawn on my rights.
Twycross
Member
...but it's OK for the government to own them, because that would be safe.ctdonath said:
Couldn't we apply the same idea to the internet and first amendment?1911Tuner said:
kjeff50cal
Member
With all the talk of assault rifles most forget that AK or AR is a pretty good "Anti-assault rifles" ie the Korean Shopkeepers in LA or anyone who had the foresight in the hurricane hit areas that defended their property (those who arms were not confiscated and hearded into relocation camps ).
WTSHTF the same "friend" that questions the ownership of such firearms WILL beat a path to your door to get a "loan" of one of yours.
kjeff50cal
). WTSHTF the same "friend" that questions the ownership of such firearms WILL beat a path to your door to get a "loan" of one of yours.
kjeff50cal
ctdonath
Member
It's OK for the government to own them, because we as a people have decided (indirectly by voting in our representatives) that not having such weapons is more dangerous than having them, and only under extremely tight guard and under handling of highly trained specially selected people may such weapons be allowed within our borders at all.
Cooper's Four Rules, as noted by Cooper himself and other smart on the subject, note that such rules may, when approved by all those who otherwise would be in danger by their breakage, be broken - but only under well understood and controlled conditions. You pull the trigger on a Glock during disassembly - but ONLY after ensuring it is NOT loaded/dangerous, and pointed in a safe direction. Some training classes (such as sniping) include pointing guns at people and pulling triggers - but ONLY with the informed consent of those who may be affected.
M.E.Eldridge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 367
Well, today I came home from the store and went into the house. Soon after I heard my dog growling and went to look outside. He was cornered up against his dog house (about 30-40 yards from my house) by two really angry coyotes.
I grabbed my closest gun, which just happened to be an SKS I was getting ready to clean, threw a few rounds in the mag and went to defend my property. Long story short, one of the ' yotes ran off, but the other fell to my Yugo. Who says you can't hunt with an "assault weapon"
I grabbed my closest gun, which just happened to be an SKS I was getting ready to clean, threw a few rounds in the mag and went to defend my property. Long story short, one of the ' yotes ran off, but the other fell to my Yugo. Who says you can't hunt with an "assault weapon"
Plumber576
Member
Nice to see my topic take off like this. Great posts guys!
- Status
