"Nuclear weapons"
I would trust any individual, or even small group, that had the resources and wherewithal to score their own nuke far more than a government. 1) The question is moot, since nukes are a nation-scale undertaking, 2) our nukes are essentially in the care of individuals working on behalf of our government already ('upstanding' citizens, like Truman, Nixon, and Obama), 3) nukes have only been used offensively or recklessly in testing by governments. To move the argument further away from the pointlessly hyperbolic realm of nuclear weapons, I would argue the same criteria apply to bombers, large stockpiles of ordnance, chemical weapons, heavy artillery, and yes, aircraft carriers. To move the argument back to actual reality; the reason none of these things are issues (remembering that someone so rich to afford them won't be easily constrained by mere law
) is because the cost inherent to any of them is beyond what any rational human would devote to defense or hobby. They darn sure wouldn't go out and do something foolish that would cause them to be destroyed or taken away, either. The closest thing to the "doomsday scenario" of a person or corporation mounting a private war of any scale that I can think of, is probably the Dole Pineapple takeover of the Hawaiian kingdom --and that was with tacit US backing, as I recall (such a responsible and upstanding citizen of the world, that Government
)
Bringing the question back down further to what I like to call "ground level," or "what actually matters," I would remind readers that rules/restrictions on the use and storage of weaponry/anything under
legitimate safety considerations is most certainly allowable under the constitution and our principles. Limits on how/how much powder you can legally store, where/how you can
discharge your weapons, and yes, arguably on
how (and
maybe where) you can carry arms are all perfectly valid --so long as failing to do so by definition infringes upon the rights of others (i.e. walking around with a lit matchlock in a highly flammable environment). RPGs are actually remarkably safe and controllable weapons, but there is wisdom in barring their use or presence in areas where only collateral damage could result. Same with grenades and any number of "destructive devices" like large-bore rifles and pepperboxes. In truth, the fact that the owner/user would still be liable for the damage caused by their weapons would effectively keep them from behaving recklessly. But, thanks to the demons inherent to human nature, these lines are blurred by ulterior motives, and soon we forget
why we needed rules or restrictions in the first place. Anti's want restrictions to make gun ownership impractical if not criminal. Gun owners want freedom simply so we won't become criminals without intent or harm to others. I'd say it's pretty clear which has a greater claim to morality, which is why I side with gun rights. That old axiom about moderation and liberty applies.
"Some people just can't handle unlimited unadulterated liberty. Some because they are criminal. Some because they are immoral. Some because they want to exercise dominion or control over others. Some because of greed. Or (generally) a combination of those."
I think for most it's simply weakness. I know I wouldn't appreciate having complete, unfettered freedom in all my actions; I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Far too much responsibility for the likes of me, or possibly any person. Working for the Man for a chunk of the day gets me bread, though, and gives me more appreciation for the time I do have at my own bidding.
"That being said, compromise is insane."
Nah, I think it's simply just incorrect. At the end of the day, all gunnies want is "to be let alone" to quote Mr. Davis, and that's the kind of yes/no situation that 'compromise' isn't even applicable to. Whether to count slaves as half or 3/5's a person --that's a compromise. Whether to allow a person to be bonded in servitude or not --there is no means to a mutual agreement. What I don't understand is why anti's can't grasp how dangerous proceeding down such a path is. I really do think a lot of them would provoke open war in this country in an effort to better manage our unruly society
"Machine guns, for all
legal purposes are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves."
Yes, let's not kid ourselves about how easy it is to illegally manufacture an open bolt machinegun. Heck, in legal parlance, you can do it
accidentally through no action on your own part (broken/worn disconnect/sear)
And lastly, Kludge;
I am heartened to know at least one other person understands just how villainous Woodrow Wilson really was. I used to think both he and Bismarck were of the same kind; well-intentioned, ruthless fools blindly pursuing their vision of justice (Germany for Bismarck, 'humanity' for Wilson). But there are so many examples of the man pursuing the most destructive course of action in any given situation, here and abroad, that I can't see it as anything but the intent of a madman to break the world so it might be remade in his image. To a certain extent, his wish has been fulfilled, with a Europe (and soon, America) so broken and codependent that it must coalesce into ever larger and more unaccountable governing bodies (the Eurozone, and the US Federal government). Peace at any price. If only his face was put on Rushmore instead of Jefferson, we point to the monument as a warning of what to look out for in our leaders (yes, even Washington exercised some very questionable leadership during the Whiskey Rebellion, especially acute given the proximity to the revolution waged over practically the same thing).
TCB