Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


Well at the risk of belaboring the point though, if the rights of the people are that cut and dried, why should they not be allowed to own WMDs, or even just, say, explosive devices, bombs etc.? Is your view on government more "trust, but verify", or "shoot them if they move"?
My satisfaction has nothing to do with this. It's just an interesting and, I think, important subject and since you are presumably interested enough to post on it, I'd like to understand your position - including your rebuttals of opposing arguments, which is kind of key to any sort of debate or dialog.

I believe in the non-aggression principle, which does allow for self-defense. The NAP is one of the primary pillars of my own political and moral philosophy.

I believe government should not be allowed to do anything you or I cannot do. For example, you cannot go to your neighbor's house, lay claim to a portion of his money, and threaten his life if he does not remit it to you. Yet government does that every day and calls it "taxation".

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


Yes - he's saying that it is a foolish mistake to allow the populace to be armed. You seemed be asking if we should follow his example (i.e. try to prevent it). I read that to mean you believe we should not follow his example, presumably because that was his chosen course of action. If that was not your point, what was the relevance of the quote? What did I misinterpret?

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

He's right. Disarm the people and you can have your way with them. And that's exactly what he did.

Governments disarmed and oppressed their people before Hitler came along, and they've done it since. And I don't believe for one second that our government wouldn't do the same if it had the opportunity. Historical precedent supports my assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I'm not engaging to your satisfaction? I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

I didn't set up any government. It existed before I was born.

 

Now we can quibble over the definition of "arms" or "militia", but it is all rather pointless. It's more important to understand the greater context, here. All one has to do is read the words of the founders to understand their views on government. Just read the Declaration of Independence, for starters.

 

They didn't trust it, which is why they specifically mentioned (not granted - because our rights do not come from government) the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression in the 2nd Amendment.

 

Whether or not they had so-called "assault weapons" in mind when they ratified the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant in the context of their words on the subject:

 

 

 

 

This is just a small sampling of quotes on the subject, but it is abundantly clear to me that the founders wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny - even if it came from their own government. The fact that man has invented more ghastly methods of causing death and destruction means that the people have even MORE of an obligation to assert their right to defend themselves - against ALL threats foreign and domestic - not less.

 

Or would you have us follow the same path as this man:

 

 

Some interesting quotes there, thanks for posting them.

The following one struck me as odd- 

-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833"

Clearly things were different back them. Today we have a military not a militia.

Around 40% of Americans own guns. Many of them own many guns and could arm enough people to carry out operations that I think could indeed defeat the efforts of the military and police. Strategic planning, as has taken place in other revolutions, can tumble what appears to be overwhelming force. Just not showing up for work, as was so effective in South Africa, would also greatly weaken any government. 

Perhaps the best solution to all this is to re-set up militias who would be trained in responsible gun use, who sign up to the responsibility of gun ownership and protect the people. They would be volunteers and would be chosen by all segments of society. Just like any militia they would decide when to use force against tyranny. The rest of the population would be denied access to guns and the militia would make sure of that. The founders don't seem to have talked too much about the need to have guns in defending themselves against their fellow countrymen. Perhaps those who have served in the militias for a period of time and are in good standing could be allowed to keep them after their service. This would weed out the criminals and the insane for the most part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Some interesting quotes there, thanks for posting them.

 

The following one struck me as odd- 

 

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833"

 

Clearly things were different back them. Today we have a military not a militia.

 

Around 40% of Americans own guns. Many of them own many guns and could arm enough people to carry out operations that I think could indeed defeat the efforts of the military and police. Strategic planning, as has taken place in other revolutions, can tumble what appears to be overwhelming force. Just not showing up for work, as was so effective in South Africa, would also greatly weaken any government. 

 

Perhaps the best solution to all this is to re-set up militias who would be trained in responsible gun use, who sign up to the responsibility of gun ownership and protect the people. They would be volunteers and would be chosen by all segments of society. Just like any militia they would decide when to use force against tyranny. The rest of the population would be denied access to guns and the militia would make sure of that. The founders don't seem to have talked too much about the need to have guns in defending themselves against their fellow countrymen. Perhaps those who have served in the militias for a period of time and are in good standing could be allowed to keep them after their service. This would weed out the criminals and the insane for the most part.

You glanced over the "domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers" part. You also glanced over the other quotes clearly defining the "militia" as the "whole people".

And would you really entrust the defense of your own life, liberty, and property to someone else? Say someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and threatens to kill you, would you say to them: "just one moment while I call my local militia/police to defend me"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You glanced over the "domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers" part. You also glanced over the other quotes clearly defining the "militia" as the "whole people".

 

And would you really entrust the defense of your own life, liberty, and property to someone else? Say someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and threatens to kill you, would you say to them: "just one moment while I call my local militia/police to defend me"?

No, really jazzguru, I read them with genuine curiosity. I realise that within the quotes there's a strong relationship between militias and the whole people.  The two are clearly intertwined.

In my idea, there would be less need for people to worry about violent intruders with guns, because all guns for ordinary citizens would be illegal. The militias would enforce that law and enforce it first and foremost on those who rank highly as a possible criminal (wayward youth etc), or someone who has already committed a violent crime. 

Perhaps, as a further compromise, only one type of non automatic hand gun would be legal for general citizens to own, and only to those who have taken a militia training course, donated their time or money to the militias and are considered sane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

No, really jazzguru, I read them with genuine curiosity. I realise that within the quotes there's a strong relationship between militias and the whole people.  The two are clearly intertwined.

 

In my idea, there would be less need for people to worry about violent intruders with guns, because all guns for ordinary citizens would be illegal. The militias would enforce that law and enforce it first and foremost on those who rank highly as a possible criminal, or someone who has already committed a violent crime. 

 

Perhaps, as a further compromise, only one type of non automatic hand gun would be legal for general citizens to own, and only to those who have taken a militia training course, donated their time or money to the militias and are considered sane.

It sounds like you've given this some thought and are trying to come up with a compromise here, which I think is commendable. But I think your solution is flawed. You assume that all "ordinary citizens" will adhere to the gun ban. That simply will not be the case. People who want guns will be able to get them, just as people who want so-called "illegal drugs" are able to get them today. Violent intruders with guns will still exist, except they will have a greater chance of success in their dastardly deeds knowing that a higher percentage of their targets will be defenseless.

Your further attempt at compromise - allowing "ordinary citizens" to own semi-automatic handguns - is intriguing, but still concentrates the greater firepower in the hands of the government, government-sanctioned groups (your hypothetical "militias") and criminals. It would still leave the people virtually defenseless against their own government, which is clearly contrary to what the founders had in mind.

Can you explain to me why you believe people cannot be trusted with guns unless those people happen to be a part of a government? What is it about the affiliation with government that suddenly makes people good and responsible and sane in your mind?

Many are focused on the AK or AR style rifle but that's just ignorance.

It's really over stated that an "assault-rifle" is high power. Many hunting rifles are much higher power. Hard to take down a bear or a moose without a lot of power. Plus also the AR15 style rifle is gaining popularity for the same reason it won over military use. Good functioning, easy to break down, easy to clean, low maintenance. Plus we trained a lot of people at tax payers' expense to use them. People buy what they know.

AR15 is really just a gas powered rifle vs spring powered. It's just a different method to do the exact same thing. So what do the gun grabbers care about? How big the magazine is? I can get a "standard" rifle with a large magazine. I could make my own magazine to hold a lot of ammo. Do they care semi-automatic nature of it. Oswald used bolt action rifle (not auto loading). Should we sell only single shot rifles? That's what my 8 year old shoots! It's a kid rifle!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

It sounds like you've given this some thought and are trying to come up with a compromise here, which I think is commendable. But I think your solution is flawed. You assume that all "ordinary citizens" will adhere to the gun ban. That simply will not be the case. People who want guns will be able to get them, just as people who want so-called "illegal drugs" are able to get them today. Violent intruders with guns will still exist, except they will have a greater chance of success in their dastardly deeds knowing that a higher percentage of their targets will be defenseless.

 

Your further attempt at compromise - allowing "ordinary citizens" to own semi-automatic handguns - is intriguing, but still concentrates the greater firepower in the hands of the government, government-sanctioned groups (your hypothetical "militias") and criminals. It would still leave the people virtually defenseless against their own government, which is clearly contrary to what the founders had in mind.

 

Can you explain to me why you believe people cannot be trusted with guns unless those people happen to be a part of a government? What is it about the affiliation with government that suddenly makes people good and responsible and sane in your mind?

I guess it depends on how autonomous the militias are. I can envision the militias being free to protect the people without government influence or control, so long as they exist within the law. They could also obtain all the weaponry they wish, and would fund themselves. They would not act as a replacement for the police, their only mandate would be to confiscate guns (which they could keep) and would act on the peoples behalf to distribute guns to the people if they considered it necessary in the face of a tyrannical government, and of course take up arms themselves. 

I think the vast majority of people can be trusted not to misuse firearms. Given the wars we're seeing clearly the people are to be more trusted than government with guns. But that doesn't mean government doesn't actually need them, it does, it just needs us to stand up to their aggression and say "no".

With the right orchestrated effort I think we could get rid of nearly all illegal guns. The militias would have the power to go from door to door, street corner to street corner searching for and confiscating illegal guns and apprehending those with them until the police arrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

 

I guess it depends on how autonomous the militias are. I can envision the militias being free to protect the people without government influence or control, so long as they exist within the law. They could also obtain all the weaponry they wish, and would fund themselves. They would not act as a replacement for the police, their only mandate would be to confiscate guns (which they could keep) and would act on the peoples behalf to distribute guns to the people if they considered it necessary in the face of a tyrannical government, and of course take up arms themselves. 

 

I think the vast majority of people can be trusted not to misuse firearms. Given the wars we're seeing clearly the people are to be more trusted than government with guns. But that doesn't mean government doesn't actually need them, it does, it just needs us to stand up to their aggression and say "no".

 

With the right orchestrated effort I think we could get rid of nearly all illegal guns. The militias would have the power to go from door to door, street corner to street corner searching for and confiscating illegal guns and apprehending those with them until the police arrive.

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.     

Here's what's happening:  You've realized why the 2nd Amendment was passed, and that it really doesn't allow the government to take any type of weapon from the populace.  So, you're trying to find wiggle room.  "Well, what if we had a private militia disarm the populace?"  You're "legalizing" so to speak.  Jazz calls it a compromise.  I'm afraid I can't be as forgiving.  

As for the WMD debate...it's moot.  The average citizen does not have access to the materials to build a nuclear weapon, nor does he have the know-how.  Nation-states spend decades trying develop such technology.   Any other WMD that was discovered (dirty bomb, chemical weapon, etc) would be easy to deal with legally, because it's mere existence would result in terrorism-related charges or at least "conspiracy" related charges.  We don't have to outlaw the specific "arms" in this case.  

That being said, I do think that we should pay more attention to people that are buying, say, 60,000 rounds of ammunition in a short period.  That doesn't mean we stop them from doing so, but keeping an eye on people that appear to be assembling an arsenal is a good idea.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That being said, I do think that we should pay more attention to people that are buying, say, 60,000 rounds of ammunition in a short period.  That doesn't mean we stop them from doing so, but keeping an eye on people that appear to be assembling an arsenal is a good idea.  

IDK about that. What's the magic number to trigger police scrutiny? For the Co shooting 500 rounds would have been as deadly at 60,000. Assuming you could shoot a round every second it would take you 20 hours to shoot 60,000 rounds not including time to allow your firearm to cool and I'd think you'd have to clean it too. I doubt anyone could actually do that. Their arms would fall off.

I have a friend that buys ammo when I goes on sale off season. He's got a lot. Why should he be hassled by the cops over it? 22 ammo comes in boxes of 500. Are we going to start taking caliber into account? Buffalo rounds? Zombie bullets? How do we reconcile all that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.     

 

Here's what's happening:  You've realized why the 2nd Amendment was passed, and that it really doesn't allow the government to take any type of weapon from the populace.  So, you're trying to find wiggle room.  "Well, what if we had a private militia disarm the populace?"  You're "legalizing" so to speak.  Jazz calls it a compromise.  I'm afraid I can't be as forgiving.  

 

As for the WMD debate...it's moot.  The average citizen does not have access to the materials to build a nuclear weapon, nor does he have the know-how.  Nation-states spend decades trying develop such technology.   Any other WMD that was discovered (dirty bomb, chemical weapon, etc) would be easy to deal with legally, because it's mere existence would result in terrorism-related charges or at least "conspiracy" related charges.  We don't have to outlaw the specific "arms" in this case.  

 

That being said, I do think that we should pay more attention to people that are buying, say, 60,000 rounds of ammunition in a short period.  That doesn't mean we stop them from doing so, but keeping an eye on people that appear to be assembling an arsenal is a good idea.  

I don't think jazzguru thought any of these ideas make sense. You neither, and I'm sure a whole lot of other Americans too. That's a shame because it provides the best of both worlds. A fully armed population to overthrow a tyrannical government, or to deter any would be tyrannical government, because the militias could quickly distribute guns to the population. And a mostly unarmed population, except for those who are trained and sane. Instead you want to carry on with the madness, meaning over the course of your lifetime literally millions of unnecessary American lives lost.

Your ammo idea may make some sense but it won't happen, and if it did would just get overturned a few years later. All these baby steps do is prolong the madness. The only way is to have a major plan that radically changes things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


Thanks for addressing the WMD question. I guess that is a reasonable approach, and could cover a large range of weaponry that has no legitimate uses in civilian hands. On the other hand, if one argues that the populace should be well-armed in part to resist an oppressive or out-of-control government, does that not unfairly restrict the military capabilities of the populace? The government has WMDs etc..

Yes, it does. It's a completely hypocritical and flawed argument on SDW's part, to say that the ownership just makes them terrorists. Basically he's undermined his own argument that the people should be armed to defeat a tyrant. He's really done the same thing with his ammo restrictions too. Fair enough that 60,000 rounds is a lot. But say the fighting goes on for a long time, years even. Then that ammo could come in really handy, it could also be shared. The government would do it's best in any civil war to starve supplies of ammo to the people, as they would with guns. If the people were to win such a fight they better be stocking up now on everything they can get there hands on before it's too late. 

Really what I proposed earlier is a better solution if you want to defeat a tyrannical government. The militias could have whatever weapons that are legal for the government to have. Any defence systems, anything at all, even tactical nukes, warships etc. There's no way the general population are going to be allowed all of that, indeed they may end up with less than they have now. And if the the military develop some kind of drone that can kill all these revolutionaries without too much trouble some time in the future, the tyrant wins. Under my militias solution, the militias could buy these same drones. They could actually win. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Yes, it does. It's a completely hypocritical and flawed argument on SDW's part, to say that the ownership just makes them terrorists. Basically he's undermined his own argument that the people should be armed to defeat a tyrant. He's really done the same thing with his ammo restrictions too. Fair enough that 60,000 rounds is a lot. But say the fighting goes on for a long time, years even. Then that ammo could come in really handy, it could also be shared. The government would do it's best in any civil war to starve supplies of ammo to the people, as they would with guns. If the people were to win such a fight they better be stocking up now on everything they can get there hands on before it's too late. 

 

Really what I proposed earlier is a better solution if you want to defeat a tyrannical government. The militias could have whatever weapons that are legal for the government to have. Any defence systems, anything at all, even tactical nukes, warships etc. There's no way the general population are going to be allowed all of that, indeed they may end up with less than they have now. And if the the military develop some kind of drone that can kill all these revolutionaries without too much trouble some time in the future, the tyrant wins. Under my militias solution, the militias could buy these same drones. They could actually win. 

I didn't say it made them terrorists.  I said possession of nuclear devicse or other such WMD would lead to terrorism and/or conspiracy-to-committ charges.  People are charged all the time over much less than this.  They would be in possession of a device which had no other purpose than mass killing.  That same reasoning cannot be applied to any other weapon, from fully automatic assault rifles, to RPGs, to F-16's, to tanks.  

As for ammunition:  My point again is not to outlaw large amounts.  My point is that we should probably have a system in which the government pays attention to purchases like that.  If I, as a school teacher who has never owned a gun, go out and buy assault rifles and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo, that should a least trigger a closer look.  I think it's reasonable such a purchase is at least questioned.  It at least warrants a full background review and investigation.  This only makes sense...though I don't know if we have the resources to be able to do it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Yes, SDW2001 is mostly right on the WMD issue. This is a point missing from those that bring it up as an argument against unlimited arms control.

 

The only entities that have ever developed, owned or used nuclear weapons (or other "weapons of mass destruction") are governments, not private individuals or groups. In fact the only entity to ever have used nuclear weapons at all, let alone on civilians is the United States government.

 

Fact is, private individuals and groups have no real incentive (or the resources) to invest in such weapons. That only happens with entities that are capable of stealing large amounts of money to develop weapons to kill large numbers of people.

And the only government to have ever used nuclear weapons to kill people is not the government of Iran, North Korea, or Cuba.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Yes, SDW2001 is mostly right on the WMD issue. This is a point missing from those that bring it up as an argument against unlimited arms control.

 

The only entities that have ever developed, owned or used nuclear weapons (or other "weapons of mass destruction") are governments, not private individuals or groups. In fact the only entity to ever have used nuclear weapons at all, let alone on civilians is the United States government.

 

Fact is, private individuals and groups have no real incentive (or the resources) to invest in such weapons. That only happens with entities that are capable of stealing large amounts of money to develop weapons to kill large numbers of people.

Oh, so if a wealthy American wants to own some WMD's you'd have the government say "No, little man"? Aren't you at all bothered about his liberty? What gives you the right to tell him he can't afford it? Who do you think you are? 

The fact is that the government is developing weapons that ordinary Americans don't have. They also would in the event of a revolution do everything to stop it. They'd jam your phones, jam your internet, use any weapons at their disposal to defeat you. Citizens aren't about to have most or hardly any of those technologies. The only solution is a fully equipped militia, and that won't happen unless people give up there guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I didn't say it made them terrorists.  I said possession of nuclear devicse or other such WMD would lead to terrorism and/or conspiracy-to-committ charges.  People are charged all the time over much less than this.  They would be in possession of a device which had no other purpose than mass killing.  That same reasoning cannot be applied to any other weapon, from fully automatic assault rifles, to RPGs, to F-16's, to tanks.  

 

As for ammunition:  My point again is not to outlaw large amounts.  My point is that we should probably have a system in which the government pays attention to purchases like that.  If I, as a school teacher who has never owned a gun, go out and buy assault rifles and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo, that should a least trigger a closer look.  I think it's reasonable such a purchase is at least questioned.  It at least warrants a full background review and investigation.  This only makes sense...though I don't know if we have the resources to be able to do it.  

You are saying it makes them terrorists. Terrorists or mass murderers basically. But that's not the point. The point is that the people have a right to defend themselves a against a tyrant. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Yes, SDW2001 is mostly right on the WMD issue. This is a point missing from those that bring it up as an argument against unlimited arms control.

 

The only entities that have ever developed, owned or used nuclear weapons (or other "weapons of mass destruction") are governments, not private individuals or groups. In fact the only entity to ever have used nuclear weapons at all, let alone on civilians is the United States government.

 

Fact is, private individuals and groups have no real incentive (or the resources) to invest in such weapons. That only happens with entities that are capable of stealing large amounts of money to develop weapons to kill large numbers of people.

Oh, so if a wealthy American wants to own some WMD's you'd have the government say "No, little man"? Aren't you at all bothered about his liberty? What gives you the right to tell him he can't afford it? Who do you think you are? 

Also about the possibility : 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare

And by the way :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

So here's some WMD's plenty of people could afford. Who wants to say why they want the American people not to have the right to own them? Please explain why you are willing to sacrifice the second amendment to keep them from owning them, I'm sure any tyrannical government would be very grateful if you voted to keep them out of the American peoples hands.

"The notion of probability of a WMD attack being low or high is a moot point because we know the probability is 100 percent,” Majidi says. “We’ve seen this in the past, and we will see it in the future. There is going to be an attack using chemical, biological or radiological material.”

Even a WMD attack that does not kill a great number of people would have a crushing psychological impact.

“A singular lone wolf individual can do things in the dark of the night with access to a laboratory with low quantities of material and could hurt a few people but create a devastating effect on the American psyche,” Majidi says."

~ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zawahiri-weapons-mass-destruction/2011/02/14/id/386055

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also about the possibility : 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare

 

And by the way :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

Perfect for the patriotic suburban man. He won't let the tyrants get their way, even if the low on ammo and less than 0.50 calibre crowd do. Sissies!

No one should be without these either to defeat tyrants. Highly portable. What do you say SDW and MJ?-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv7sBh5aMv0&feature=related

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Oh, so if a wealthy American wants to own some WMD's you'd have the government say "No, little man"? Aren't you at all bothered about his liberty? What gives you the right to tell him he can't afford it? Who do you think you are? 

 

Tell you what Hands. If you can point to a single example of a private, non-state funded individual or group that has developed, owned or ever used a nuclear weapon or even a large WMD, then we might have something to discuss. Until then you are simply continuing to make my point which is that it is the government we ought to be concerned about with regard to many things, but with regard to developing, owning and using extremely deadly weapons.

 

 

Are you suggesting it can't happen? Personally in this regard I think we should be concerned with both. As Oppenheimer said

The genie is pretty well out of the bottle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Are you suggesting it can't happen?

 

I'm suggesting it's pretty unlikely. Again..resources and incentives. It is governments that have the (stolen) resources to undertake this and the incentive (to kill). That's where your concern ought to be. But, alas, you and others a gravely concerned about one nut who went on a shooting rampage and killed fewer people than Barack Obama did on one of his very first executive orders by the stroke of a pen.

What's to keep a group or individual from purchasing this? While putting it together might be difficult buying it from people who don't care is a possibility. That's why I posted the bit about the suitcase items from Israel. Also I'd be more concerned about Romney. And please if you say why I simply refer you back to the statements he makes. His whole demeanor is one of a hawk. Also it's one of say one thing and do another. Put those two together and it's kind of scary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Do you have any examples of such governments that we should be concerned about?

 

Well the general answer, of course, is all of them. But the bigger ones are probably much greater concern. From there it moves to those who already possess the capability. Finally the one that has actually used it...twice.

Yes this is where we do agree. Also maybe where we might not ( I'm sure where you stand on this ) but I believe nuclear weapons should be banned. It's one weapon of war scenario where potentially no one wins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

What's to keep a group or individual from purchasing this?

 

In theory? Probably nothing. In reality? Well...as I say, what is the incentive here?

Terror!

Besides you're really looking for logical motivation here from crazy people? If in reference to James Holmes we're talking about a guy who wired up his apartment to take out the entire building. Just think what a nut job could do with a real bomb. However it would be more likely for a terrorist group I'll give you that. But everytime you think something like that can't happen I wouldn't be so sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Are we talking at cross-purposes here? I thought this concern was about governments oppressing their own citizens, not about actions committed agains others during times of war.

Why does this difference matter? Just because it is someone else?

It matters, I think, because this discussion appeared to be about the inalienable rights of the citizens of the US to own weapons in order to defend themselves against oppression. You then commented that we should be concerned about states that had nuclear weapons, especially the state that had actually used them. But that was not oppression - that was an act of war. The US has shown no inclination that I am aware of to use nuclear weapons, or any other weapons for that matter, against its own citizens. In fact relatively few stable democratic states have suffered from serious government oppression - that's mostly the preserve of dictatorships and fake democracies. So why should we be scared exactly?

But as you know that's not exactly the only reason people own weapons ( think about any mass murder type shooting you've every heard about ). When you're dealing with humans and they're crazy it doesn't matter if they're a government or an individual. They're unpredictable by ordinary standards. That's why we should at least be wary. Ever see the movie " The Dead Zone"? I know I'm agreeing with MJ here ( ahhhhhhhh! ) but presidents can be crazy also. I think Nuclear weapons should be banned pure and simple ( I'm really not sure where MJ stands on this ).