Re: nukes
sevensixtwo wrote:so now if someone breaks into our house we should have the right to drop a nuke on them?
Obviously not. This is why the right for self-defense is not the same as the right to own, operate or carry specific weaponry.
Quote:nobody needs a nuke, not even an entire country. world leader...etc...
I assure you that I
need nukes. Many of my plans cannot proceed without several of them.
Quote:the simple fact is, the only way to use a nuke is to plan ahead, you have to get out of the vicinity, or else you are commiting suicide(which is already illegal...funny as that may be) planning ahead is commiting murder, because if you kill someone without it being a spontaneous threat to life, its pre-meditated homicide.
It can be construed as "self-defense" in that it's a deterrent.
Quote:as for the right to keep and bear arms, i think nothing should be illegal, in the way of non explosive firearms, that is to say, tracer rounds, though highly flamable, should still be legal, however, javlin missles, should remain in the hands of the US army.
Here you are drawing a line on how far the "self-defense" argument can go. This was the point of the exercise.
Quote:lets face it, nobody has a practical use for a rocket propelled grenade, not even for recreational uses.
I assure you that I have many uses for both.
Quote: however, things like automatic AK-47's, they should be restricted, as they are today, but they should still be available. and semi-autos should have no restrictions, background check that should be all that's required.
See how the concern parts company with the "self-defense"argument? There are lines that even pro-gun folk draw.
Quote:same with bolt action, lever action, all those good things. high-cap mags dont make murder more easily achieved.
More easily than what? Using a large stone is, in my exprience, difficult.
Quote: nor do pistol grip handles, bayonette lugs, or those infamous folding stocks. if anything is illegal, it should be sarah brady lying to the american public and misleading every person who is neutral on the issue just to swing votes to the anti-gun side of the table, like when she said that automatics were very prevelent before the institution of the 1994 assault weapons ban....when in fact, that ban only hurts hunters and target shooters, not murderers.
"Guns should not be illegal. Lying should."
Tough sell, tough sell. I think I'll have my nukes before you get that one past the public.
Quote: i recently went shooting with an ar-15 from olympic arms, for those who dont know what im talking about, it looks like an m-16 or m4. this was pre-ban though, and it also had high cap mags, over 10rnds, 30 rnds to be exact, it made shooting a lot easier and a much more enjoyable experience.
I shot one in Brazil for a whole weekend. It cost me a lot of money (in Brazil the rounds are much more expensive than here in the states) so I obviously enjoyed it.
But I still think they should be restricted to sporting locations.
Quote:after 10 rounds you hardly feel like loading another clip, but after 30 you can go out and check your groups while your gun cools, instead of reloading all the time.
We were shooting old military vehicles. Then the vehicles would be dragged to the entry of the jungle. Coming in was spooky, you'd drive up a road lined with bullet ridden automobiles while hearing gunshots in the distance.
Great fun, not as fun as nukes but still fun. Should still be illegal by my estimation.
