The gun control debate

skullmask

Woodpecker
No governments should own nuclear arms.
But they do. And at this point no government, at least no sane government, is going to be willing to give up the nukes they currently have.

What about if state governments owned nuclear arms?
The Constitution says the federal government is the entity that has authority to declare war and make peace. States can't do that. However, states do have the NG units, which some might put up as a counter argument. Here's the thing though. Nukes are not really defensive weapons. They may be a deterrent, but they are not defensive. You wouldn't be detonating them in the USA to stop an invading army; you only blow them up in an enemy country. It wouldn't make sense to have individual states possess nukes as any decision to nuke a foreign country would have to come down from the CIC.

Please keep in mind that here I'm speaking about how things would work, if we had sane governance that followed the Constitution and a legitimate president rather than the walking corpse we have now. I am fully aware that all bets are off in clown world.
 
The argument around nuclear weapons usually assumes the same thing that gun control advocates tell us: more guns would equal more crime or in this case more nukes would equal more armageddon. However, we know the first isn't true. Why assume if everyone could possess nukes there still isn't mutually assured self-destruction preventing their use? How many people are going to get drunk and fling a nuke around knowing another one will come their way?

It wouldn't make sense to have individual states possess nukes as any decision to nuke a foreign country would have to come down from the CIC.

It will probably make sense soon, just replace "foreign country" with "foreign state."

[California looks around nervously]
 

BlueMark

Woodpecker
Gold Member
But they do. And at this point no government, at least no sane government, is going to be willing to give up the nukes they currently have.

The point is that "should civilians be able to own nukes?" is a false argument in the gun control debate.

I'm agreeing with your earlier post "They like to throw things like nuclear weapons ..." by responding to Elipe.
 

BURNΞR

Pelican
You guys thinking about this too philosophically. Leftists don't care about reasoning, logic or rules, they only care about consolidating power and then doing whatever it takes to get their way. Their thinking can be summed as follows:

1. Truth comes from power
2. The ends justify the means
 

The Penitent Man

Woodpecker
I'd have to agree with @Elipe regarding the 2nd amendment. People have the right to own whatever type of firearm they want. I'm fine with them having tanks and flamethrowers too.

However, I'd like to address something I see people argue about regarding the right to bear arms. They like to throw things like nuclear weapons and the like into their arguments, either for or against it regarding the 2nd amendment. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to facilitate the citizenry in deterring their government from going tyrannical, and to overthrow it if needed. It was not created so that anyone with the cash to buy their own ICBMs could destroy the world if they wanted to. Nuke usage has worldwide consequences, so it is proper that their employment be restricted to the government.
The nuclear arms thing is just some dumb straw man that liberal college kids throw out because they heard it repeated by their Jewish professor. Nobody is trying to take away the right to your nuclear defense arsenal because you don’t have one and could never own one. I’ve never heard anyone advocate for a private citizen owning a nuke. It doesn’t exist and has no rational connection to any constitutional claim.

The non sequitur goes: “Because it’s irrational for you to own a nuclear bomb, therefore you shouldn’t have a rifle at home.”

It’s not even worth a response to the people who bring it up in earnest as some kind of an argument against the right to bear arms (I know you were just replying to another post, I just figured yours was a good post to reply to in context). It merits no more reaction than a derisive “what?”
 

skullmask

Woodpecker
The nuclear arms thing is just some dumb straw man that liberal college kids throw out because they heard it repeated by their Jewish professor. Nobody is trying to take away the right to your nuclear defense arsenal because you don’t have one and could never own one. I’ve never heard anyone advocate for a private citizen owning a nuke. It doesn’t exist and has no rational connection to any constitutional claim.

The non sequitur goes: “Because it’s irrational for you to own a nuclear bomb, therefore you shouldn’t have a rifle at home.”

It’s not even worth a response to the people who bring it up in earnest as some kind of an argument against the right to bear arms (I know you were just replying to another post, I just figured yours was a good post to reply to in context). It merits no more reaction than a derisive “what?”

I just threw that in there because I've heard that argument used before, and figured I could say something for the benefit of others who might encounter such an argument. Believe it or not, I've even heard some lolbertarians argue that private citizens should be allowed to possess nukes. Cause you know, not allowing people to buy recreational nukes violates the NAP, or something...
 
The point is that "should civilians be able to own nukes?" is a false argument in the gun control debate.

I'm agreeing with your earlier post "They like to throw things like nuclear weapons ..." by responding to Elipe.
"should civilians be able to own nukes?" is not an argument, it's a question.
 
The founding fathers included the second amendment not because it was some philosophical statement of truth, but because they knew they weren't going to be able to get ratification if people felt the federal government was going to take all the guns. Some people in the thread are treating it as though it's some big philosophical statement of truth
 

Elipe

Pelican
No governments should own nuclear arms.

Nuclear weapons were developed by the biggest governments of the world, not by private arms manufacturers.
I agree, but that's a genie you can't put back into the bottle. Nukes exist, and every government of the world wants them, with good reason.

You guys thinking about this too philosophically. Leftists don't care about reasoning, logic or rules, they only care about consolidating power and then doing whatever it takes to get their way. Their thinking can be summed as follows:

1. Truth comes from power
2. The ends justify the means
No disagreement from me here, but we're not leftists here. We're just discussing the private nuke ownership question for fun.

I just threw that in there because I've heard that argument used before, and figured I could say something for the benefit of others who might encounter such an argument. Believe it or not, I've even heard some lolbertarians argue that private citizens should be allowed to possess nukes. Cause you know, not allowing people to buy recreational nukes violates the NAP, or something...
Again, I'm not a libertarian, but I do believe that the Second Amendment is supposed to be understood as a mechanism for resisting tyranny. That means being able to match tit for tat with the government's arsenal to a sufficient degree that the government is massively disincentivized from making war upon its citizenry.

The founding fathers included the second amendment not because it was some philosophical statement of truth, but because they knew they weren't going to be able to get ratification if people felt the federal government was going to take all the guns. Some people in the thread are treating it as though it's some big philosophical statement of truth
Whether or not that's true, the point stands: people want those guns for a reason.
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Tweet got censored.
Interesting. The tweet was about a SCOTUS ruling over entering homes without a warrant.

The Supreme Court on Monday shut down a police attempt to enter homes without a warrant, siding against the Biden administration.

The court, in a unanimous decision, found that police, using the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures, were not allowed to enter a Rhode Island man's home and take his guns. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court's opinion, saying that police had violated the "very core of the Fourth Amendment."

Prior to arguments, the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the police. In a brief filed to the court, the Justice Department argued that the Fourth Amendment hinges on a question of “reasonableness.”

“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception, but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” attorneys for the department wrote. “And under all of the circumstances here, they were.”

As you can see, apparently it looks like the Biden Administration wants to enter homes of gun owners without a search warrant. Go figure. The Left/Democrats want a lawless society so they don't like to follow the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.

 

The Penitent Man

Woodpecker
Interesting. The tweet was about a SCOTUS ruling over entering homes without a warrant.





As you can see, apparently it looks like the Biden Administration wants to enter homes of gun owners without a search warrant. Go figure. The Left/Democrats want a lawless society so they don't like to follow the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.

They want the law to be whatever they say it is to suit their desires of the moment, which of course is lawlessness. Tick tock. It’s only a matter of time and we all know it. God bless Clarence Thomas though.
 

Elipe

Pelican
As you can see, apparently it looks like the Biden Administration wants to enter homes of gun owners without a search warrant. Go figure. The Left/Democrats want a lawless society so they don't like to follow the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.
I suppose I should start thanking God every morning that our enemies are such ridiculously, absurdly, stupid and inept idiots. And then mourn the fact that our side is also exceedingly inept for its inability to defeat such a stupid enemy.

I can think of several other ways the Democrats could've raped the Fourth Amendment with the amount of power and influence (((they))) have, but it's a mystery to me why they don't.

Aren't we supposed to be past the point where they even care about turning up the hot water too fast to boil the frog?
 
I suppose I should start thanking God every morning that our enemies are such ridiculously, absurdly, stupid and inept idiots. And then mourn the fact that our side is also exceedingly inept for its inability to defeat such a stupid enemy.

I can think of several other ways the Democrats could've raped the Fourth Amendment with the amount of power and influence (((they))) have, but it's a mystery to me why they don't.

Aren't we supposed to be past the point where they even care about turning up the hot water too fast to boil the frog?
It appears we are not. They have the NSA and FBI at their fingertips and they know how very unpopular their message is among the only demographic that matters, young Christian family men. They know they have to keep slowly boiling until they completely purge the military and police. Even if it takes another couple of generations.
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member


6b5f297c9dfa5aee7603401aa8ce25d8bdc82fea66e1280850eeb361dbdcdadb_1.jpg
 
Top